Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Employment

Mr. Ian Davidson: What recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive about levels of employment in Scotland. [159289]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a wide range of matters, including employment, especially given that we in Scotland now have the lowest unemployment since 1976 and the highest employment since 1960. Since the 1997 election employment is up by 105,000, long-term unemployment is down by 60 per cent. and youth unemployment is down by 2,000. The First Minister and I therefore have very fruitful and positive conversations.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Secretary of State aware that unemployment in my constituency has been cut by 40 per cent. since the general election? Is, she aware that youth

unemployment has been cut by more than 70 per cent? Is she able to give answers to those very difficult questions from the Dispatch Box today?
While much has been done, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is still much to do? Does she accept that Pollok requires its own jobcentre? [HON. MEMBERS: "More, more!"] Thank you.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that Govan and Yarrow shipbuilders require firm Ministry of Defence orders now? Does she also accept that it is about time that we had a general election?

Mrs. Liddell: Whenever my hon. Friend comes to the House, I am filled with trepidation about what he might ask me. I can tell him, however, that much has been done and there is much to do, but there is also much to lose. I agree with him that it is time for a general election.
I note my hon. Friend's point about a jobcentre in Pollok; I have already raised it with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities. The Ministry of Defence has gone to considerable lengths to secure MOD orders for Govan. I know that the work force are still troubled about the possibility of difficulties during the spill-over period. I have met them, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence intends to do so shortly.

Mrs. Ray Michie: The Secretary of State will know that the unemployment figures in Campbeltown in my constituency are twice the Scottish average. Following the recent announcement of the closure of the Jaeger factory—which was a terrible blow to the town, as Jaeger was its last major employer—can the right hon. Lady confirm that the Campbeltown-Ballycastle ferry will be reinstated, and, in particular, that the Ministry of Defence is no longer dragging its feet with regard to the turbine factory at Machrihanish?
The people of Campbeltown live in isolation at the end of a peninsula, cut off and too often forgotten by Government. They really need to hear some concrete news for the future.

Mrs. Liddell: First, let me wish the hon. Lady well as she approaches her retirement. Indeed, some 18 Scottish Members in all parties are not seeking re-election, and I take this opportunity to commend them for the distinguished service that they have given. That applies particularly to the hon. Lady, who comes from a very distinguished political background. She has served her party and her country with distinction.
The hon. Lady and I share a great love of Argyll, and I look forward to meeting her in the future—perhaps when we watch the shinty, although I suspect that on that occasion I shall be supporting Kyles of Bute while she will be supporting Oban Camanachd. Undoubtedly, she will have an opportunity to enjoy the beauty of her constituency.
The hon. Lady spoke of problems in Campbeltown and the Mull of Kintyre. I have been very conscious of the difficulties that could be created as a result of the closure of the Jaeger factory, and prior to that my colleagues and I have looked closely at activities on the Mull of Kintyre. I am delighted to be able to announce that discussions have taken place between the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Executive and my own Scotland Office about the Ballycastle to Campbeltown ferry, and that we will now test the market with a view to making concrete progress by the summer—assuming that the market conditions are right. I know that that will give a considerable boost not just to the Mull of Kintyre, but to all that part of Argyll.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has had discussions with colleagues in the MOD about Vesta, and I understand that considerable progress is being made. I think that there are positive signs, and I hope the hon. Lady will be reassured by that.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has my right hon. Friend noted that no Conservative Member has even tried to speak of unemployment? Could that be because the Conservatives are embarrassed by the fact that the last time the unemployment figures were as low as this, Labour was in government?
As I leave the House after 14 years representing Maryhill, let me say that I came here hoping that something could be done about the appalling levels of unemployment in my constituency. It took a Labour Government to bring those figures down. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. Pollok (Mr. Davidson) said, a great deal has been done and there is more to do.

Mrs. Liddell: I also wish my hon. Friend well as she approaches her retirement; the warmth of the response to her is very well known. She is also right to remind us of how much we have to lose if this Labour Government are not re-elected. All of us who lived through those bleak Tory years remember what happened to unemployment in cities such as Glasgow and in my own constituency in Lanarkshire.
Many of our traditional industries were decimated by the Tories. Therefore, I am happy to announce that the European Commission has today given authority for the

payment of £18 million of assistance to Longannet deep mine, fulfilling the second tranche of assistance to secure the future of the coal industry in Scotland. That is a great tribute not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), but to the late Donald Dewar, whose commitment to Longannet was second to none.

Sir Peter Emery: Would the Secretary of State—who has been boasting so much of the success of the Government's action in Scotland—like to assure my constituents in Devon that Scotland will no longer be wanting the £861-odd extra per head of population that it receives, unlike my constituents; that the levels of benefit that it receives will come down to those received by the whole of the nation; and that it will not continue to receive much more money than is available to the rest of the United Kingdom including England?

Mrs. Liddell: That was a very interesting exposition of Tory policy. Labour Members, however, believe in governing for the many and not for the few. We have achieved much in this Parliament, but we still have much to do. On unemployment, though, we now have the prospect of full employment for all of the United Kingdom, which is something that I have wanted to achieve in my political lifetime. It could be snatched away if Conservative Members were ever again to he elected to government. It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman is taking the same line as the Scottish National party, whose members will be Hague's little helpers in the forthcoming general election as they seek to ensure the election of a Tory Government.

Ms Rachel Squire: Like my right hon. Friend and all Labour Members, I will never forget the devastation caused to mining communities by the actions of the previous Government and how, for many thousands of redundant miners, the only jobs on offer were as £2 an hour security guards. I pay tribute to her and to the previous First Minister, Donald Dewar, for securing the future for the only deep mine left in Scotland. Does she agree that the best future for that deep mine rests with the return or a Labour Government?
Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for shorter questions and, of course, for shorter answers. I also remind the House that we are on Scottish questions. The general election campaign will be fought elsewhere.

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) is aware that the coal industry faced very significant difficulties when we were first elected to government and that the introduction of a stricter gas consents policy allowed a breathing space for the coal industry to fin I its place in a competitive market. I am very glad that we have been able to make real progress on Longannet deep mine, which is the last deep mine in Scotland. I am also pleased that we have been able to make progress on delivering compensation to those miners who, over very many years, gave their health so that we could have a coal industry—an industry that was treated with contempt by Conservative Members.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Just for once, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for


Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), who said that it is time that we had a general election. So it is—so that we can have a change of Government. [Interruption.] As people in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom know perfectly well—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) keeps asking whether I know where Pollok is. Of course I know where Pollok is. However, that is not what we are here to discuss. We are here to discuss Scotland's economy and Scotland's unemployment levels and to hold this Government, however temporarily, to account for what they are doing.
The fact is that people in Scotland know perfectly well that the reason for the present strength of the Scottish economy is not the policies of this Government, but the policies of the previous Conservative Government which have not yet been destroyed. Indeed, 67 per cent. of people in Scotland think that taxes there are too high. They are right and they know what to do about it. On unemployment, as on other matters the Government are very good at spin, but not good at delivery. Some of us believe in delivery and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think there was a question there.

Mrs. Liddell: I was getting quite worried about the hon. Lady, given her forthcoming happy event, which I understand is to be in July. I wish filer well for that. Her loyalty to her party is very well known, but I hope that it does not mean that she has to call the child Orinoco. We are well aware of what the previous Government did to Scotland. Those of us who represent constituencies in Scotland saw long-term unemployment rocket and a dearth of hope for young people in our communities.
The hon. Lady talks about taxation. The general election is coming up and one of the anxieties that I have for my constituents is to ensure that the working families tax credit continues for those families who have been given a ladder out of poverty and that the children's tax credit continues delivering £520 to families with children. Those are the policies that this Government have pursued. We are asking for a further opportunity to advance those policies and we have a lot to lose if the Conservatives win the general election.

National Minimum Wage

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: How many people in Scotland have benefited from the national minimum wage since its introduction. [159290]

The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): More than 120,000 people in every constituency in Scotland, including Aberdeen, North, have benefited from the national minimum wage since it was introduced by the Labour Government in April 1999. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that on 1 October the national minimum wage will the increased by almost 11 per cent.—that is greater than the increase in average earnings—except in the admittedly unlikely event of the election of a Tory Government who are committed to scrapping it. It is absolutely vital that that does not happen.

Mr. Savidge: In Aberdeen, the national minimum wage has proved particularly beneficial to women. Can my hon.
Friend indicate how far that has been the general pattern? Given the general success of the policy, does he agree that when the non-voting record of certain parties comes under scrutiny—with apologies to Shakespeare—"Gentlemen from Scotland, then a-bed, shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here."? Stand up for Scotland? They cannot even stay up for Scotland!

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right in every respect. Some 70 per cent. of the beneficiaries of the minimum wage have been women. It has had the greatest effect on women's pay since the Equal Pay Act 1970. I am pleased to see that some Tories are rising, to ask questions as they said that jobs would be lost because of the national minimum wage. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Unemployment has gone down and employment has gone up in every part of the United Kingdom. I notice that SNP Members are not even standing to ask questions on this. As my hon. Friend rightly said, they were not here to go through the Lobby to vote for a national minimum wage. How can they stand up for Scotland when they do not even turn up for Scotland?

Sir Robert Smith: Does the Minister recognise that, while the Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that the minimum wage has stopped the worst employment practices in terms of low pay, many people do not work in paid employment but run a small business or a farm? Because of the current foot and mouth epidemic, many of those people's incomes are below the minimum wage. Will he therefore ensure that the Prime Minister recognises that, although the number of foot and mouth cases may be tailing off, the economic consequences will be felt in the rural economy for many years after the last case has been reported?

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman makes a very sensible point, although it grieves me somewhat to say so. The Government understand the difficulties created by foot and mouth. That is why we have put in place a great deal of help for farmers and people involved in agriculture, and for those affected indirectly. The hon. Gentleman will know that the increase in the minimum wage was announced in March, which has given people a significant amount of time to prepare. I am sure that he would not want people currently struggling on low pay to suffer as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic. Obviously, we must take account of the effects of foot and mouth disease, which are felt by employees as well as employers.

Anti-drugs Strategy

Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: What recent discussions she has had with the First Minister concerning the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [159291]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I meet regularly with the First Minister and discuss a range of topics, including how to tackle the menace of drug abuse in Scotland. I know that my hon. Friend is anxious to hear about that

Mrs. McKenna: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the creation of the Scottish communities


against drugs fund? It will make money available to those strapped communities fighting a campaign against drugs in Scotland to make their areas drug free and to offer a more positive environment for people at risk from drugs. Will she also join me in welcoming the support of the Daily Record?

Mrs. Liddell: May I begin by assuming that the whole House will want to join me in wishing my hon. Friend a very happy birthday? I understand that it is a significant one.
The issue of drugs is very important in Scotland. It is a classic example of a matter for which there is a need for partnership between the Government at Westminster and the Scottish Executive. I congratulate the Scottish Executive on this afternoon's launch of the Scottish communities against drugs fund. I also congratulate the Daily Record on its campaign to raise money to be spent on community projects to tackle the horror of drug abuse. I urge all hon. Members concerned about drugs in our community to make a personal contribution to the campaign, as every pound raised by the Daily Record will be matched by the Scottish Executive.
The legislation covering the proceeds of crime is another example of partnership, and it will ensure that drug dealers' assets are confiscated. That is also vital. Indeed, the Scottish Executive, in partnership with the Government at Westminster, established the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, which has £15 million and 200 dedicated officers to fight drug abuse.

Barnett Formula

Mr. Alex Salmond: What discussions she has held with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the Barnett formula. [159292]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Deputy Prime Minister, on a variety of matters.

Mr. Salmond: Does not the Secretary of State find it ironic that, at a time when she is accusing the Tory party of wanting to cut £8 billion of public spending, the Deputy Prime Minister is aiming to reduce spending in Scotland by £1,000 a head? Even London brokers say that Scotland's surplus of revenue over expenditure comes to £100 million a month. Should not the Scottish Parliament therefore have control over revenue, rather than being at the mercy of an anti-Scottish cabal in the Cabinet?
Did not the Deputy Prime Minister say that the Barnett formula was not set in stone, and forecast blood on the carpet? Why was No. 10 so anxious to say that right hon. Gentleman was not talking about the Barnett formula, if not because of the anxiety of Labour Members to keep the issue quiet until the election is safely over?

Mrs. Liddell: One thing that one can say with certainty is that the hon. Gentleman is never happier than when he is whingeing for Scotland. This Government have no plans to change the Barnett formula, and we have delivered £8.5 billion more in public expenditure for

Scotland. The hon. Gentleman's party's plans for Scotland would mean a reduction of about £500 million in expenditure on health, £500 million less expenditure on local authorities and £500 million less for other services such as transport, housing and economic development. The health service in Scotland has benefited to the tune of more than £400 million. The SNP's plans for Scotland would have meant an increase in health expenditure of a puny £38 million. We would take the hon. Gentleman much more seriously—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the right hon. Lady to sit down.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: If the right hon. Lady is right in her view of the firmness of the Government in respect of the Barnett formula, will she explain why, when I asked her Department in writing on 11 January about its intentions towards the formula, it took two and a half months to deliver the completely anodyne reply that the Government supported the retention of the formula? Why was there that delay if the Government were not considering scrapping it?

Mrs. Liddell: I was not in the Department on 11 January. We have discussed the matter twice at Question Time—perhaps on occasions when the hon. Gentleman was not here.

Mr. Grieve: As usual, the right hon. Lady is less than frank about the position. Why did it take so long to answer the question? Is not the reality that the Government knew very well on 11 January that they were considering scrapping the formula and were trying to put that forward in a way that might be presentable? Would the Government not be reneging on a key commitment that they made in the past by scrapping the formula, which would be part of the complete dissolution of this country that is being brought about, through the agency of the Deputy Prime Minister, as part of the regional policy?

Mrs. Liddell: I find it interesting that the hon. Gentleman's colleague Sir Malcolm Rifkind made it clear that he could not guarantee maintaining spending in Scotland; this was the man who said that the poll tax was a very good experiment for Scotland.
The Government have no plans to change the Barnett formula and have increased public expenditure in Scotland by £8.5 billion. The Conservative party would cut £24 million from every constituency in Scotland if they were elected.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADVOCATE-GENERAL

The Advocate-General was asked—

Human Rights Act

Miss Anne McIntosh: On how many occasions she has been requested to give advice on the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [159313]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): When requested, I give advice, as a United Kingdom Law Officer, on a variety of matters including questions concerning the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful to the Advocate-General for repeating her answer to my question of one month ago. Will she now tell me how many times she has been requested to give legal advice, what the cost of such advice has been on such occasions and what the total cost of implementing the Human Rights Act in Scotland has been?

The Advocate-General: Duplication—we call it corroboration in Scotland—is a doctrine with which the hon. Lady may be familiar. It is a long-standing tradition that Law Officers do not advise about the questions that they have been asked—one which Law Officers on both sides of the House recognise.
I am not going to answer the hon. Lady's question because of that general convention, Which Administrations of all complexions have followed for many years, and from which I see no reason to depart on this occasion. So far as the cost is concerned, my salary is a matter of public record; hon. Members can look it up.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, in terms of human rights in Scotland, the Disability Rights Commission will always have an important part to play? It is one of the finest achievements of the Government. Will she remember that hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland are delighted that this United Kingdom Parliament delivered that measure?

The Advocate-General: With Some assistance from my right hon. Friend, the convention on human rights has been delivered in Scotland. It is an important step that individual citizens can now exercise their rights and have their rights guaranteed by the domestic courts of this country, which is a much cheaper and quicker alternative than going to Strasbourg.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Having just treated the House to that extraordinary mixture of incompetence and contempt, will the Advocate-General tell us what she is for?

The Advocate-General: Certainly. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to listen, I will tell him—at length, if Mr. Speaker permits. Under the Scotland Act 1998, I have a number of functions. I inherited the advisory functions of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General. I advise the United Kingdom Government about a range of matters on not only Scots law but European law, including the European convention on human rights. I also sit on a number of Cabinet Committees. I have a statutory role under section 33 of the 1998 Act of considering Scottish Parliament legislation, and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about human rights, not about the Advocate-General's role.

Mr. David Stewart: If she will make a statement on her role in monitoring the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998. [159314]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): If the human rights point raises a devolution issue, it must be intimated to me and I have powers to intervene. I am also kept informed about the general impact of the Human Rights Act, including important court cases. With reference to the question from the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), it is because of the devolution aspects that I have a role in relation to human rights.

Mr. Stewart: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the advantage of the Human Rights Act is that it makes justice more accessible for ordinary people by fast-tracking access to the United Kingdom courts. avoiding the cost and the delays involved in going to Strasbourg? How long does it take to raise a case now?

The Advocate-General: A human rights case can be raised with great speed in the domestic courts in Scotland. Depending on the situation, it could be raised and dealt with by the court within a few days. The appeal process has shown that human rights issues can be taken through the entire process, all the way to the Privy Council, within months, which is a vast improvement on the previous situation, whereby individual citizens sometimes had to wait years before a court considered their claim.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMEMT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Magistrates Courts

Mr. Peter Luff: If she will make a statement on the role of the private finance initiative in the provision of new magistrates courts. [159318]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The private finance initiative is used to procure new magistrates courts throughout England and Wales. I am happy to make a statement on the subject.
Projects for 13 magistrates courts committees are in various stages of procurement. The first of the new courts to come into use under this funding route will open later this year at Kidderminster, Hereford and Worcester.

Mr. Luff: The Minister will know how glad I am that the Government continued with the construction of new magistrates courts under PFI that was started by the previous Government. Would not it be wrong. however, to sacrifice smaller, rural magistrates courts such as


Evesham on the altar of PHI, especially when they are being asked to provide extra capacity during the construction of the new courts?

Jane Kennedy: I am happy to pay tribute to the representations that the hon. Gentleman made during the consultation on the original closure programme introduced by the magistrates courts committee in Hereford and Worcester, and I acknowledge that, as the Worcester court has become inoperable because the police no longer use it, Evesham is now one of the courts that is used for the excess work. I understand that the committee intends shortly to hold consultations on proposals for courthouse closures, but as no decisions have yet been made, I cannot comment on any such proposals.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend ensure that PFIs can be used to bring existing courthouses up to scratch, so that the jailing sections meet the modem European standard?

Jane Kennedy: I absolutely concur with the point that my hon. Friend is making about security. PFIs are indeed being used for a range of purposes, and not only new build, important though that is. For example, once such initiative is providing refurbished courthouses at Redditch.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Parliamentary Secretary talks about the use of private finance in magistrates courts, but has she considered the figures revealed this morning in one of the national newspapers by the distinguished legal correspondent, Joshua Rozenberg, that show that in Greater London fines worth more than £92 million remained uncollected last year alone? Does she not recognise that judges and magistrates are increasingly concerned that the mismanagement and incompetence of her noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has led to a collapse in confidence in collecting fines and in other non-custodial penalties? On the day the Prime Minister finally dared to call a general election, which he will lose, should not the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that the Lord Chancellor must acknowledge that he is the weakest link and say goodbye?

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman may not know that successive Governments have considered that fine enforcement would be more effective if such work were transferred from the police to the magistrates courts committees, which can give it a higher priority. However, this Government have delivered that modernisation to the magistrates courts committees. That is a measure of our confidence in their ability to handle that work. He and his party propose to take £525 million out of the justice system, so it is rich for him to lecture us on modernisation and improvements in the service.

Justices of the Peace

Mr. Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement on the progress being made to allow people from a wider range of social backgrounds to become JPs. [159319]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about this issue. As I said in a written answer:
my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, has asked for a national strategy for tin recruitment of lay magistrates to be developed."—[Official Report, 3 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 173W.]
The local advisory committees do a lot of good work to encourage people from all walks of life to apply. I ask all hon. Members to help us to get the message across that we want benches to be representative of the community that they serve.

Mr. Chapman: Is it not important that that representational approach reflects the ethnic, social and political mix of the community? Is it not vital to focus on making the bench more equitable? Will the Minister consider, for example, shortening the hours of commitment, so that the bench is more accessible to working people? Will she also consider improving the image of the bench, which is not as good as it should be?

Jane Kennedy: I will, of course, take careful note of all the points that my hon. Friend raises. The Lord Chancellor was one of the first Lord Chancellors to consider that political balance may not be an appropriate way to measure social balance on benches, and that was the result of the landslide at the last general election.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Lady accept that whatever has gone wrong in her Department, we all k low that it was not her fault? So magnificent has been her stewardship that we know that this is the last time we shall see her before she rockets to greater heights, in the shadow Cabinet. Does she agree that what matters most is that such people, who perform an incredibly important job in the community, are seen to be truly effective, and that anything that takes our eye off that ball would be a great mistake?

Jane Kennedy: I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to help me, and I hope that the Prime Minister was listening.
The hon. Gentleman is right; the pre-eminent requirement is personal suitability for appointment to the job, and more than 30,000 people from all walks of life serve as lay magistrates.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: There are hairdressers.

Jane Kennedy: As my hon. Friend says, the magistracy includes hairdressers. Being a magistrate is not an easy task, and I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to magistrates for the important work that they do.

Mrs. Ann Cryer: Will the Minister comment on her Department's success in recruiting people from the ethnic minority community to the magistrates bench? What sort of gender balance has been achieved from within that community?

Jane Kennedy: We seek constantly to review the balance and make-up of benches. It is important that hon.
Members on both sides of the House support us in every step that we take along the route to ensuring that the bench is properly representative of the community from which it is drawn. We are doing well in recruiting in the ethnic communities, but we have a lot more to do, and that message needs to go out from the House.

Mr. John Burnett: The Minister uttered some fine words, but in many parts of the country they are meaningless. Because of the magistrates courts closures under the Government, a number of people from wider social backgrounds have been forced to leave the lay magistracy. The Government have commissioned an inquiry into the cost-effectiveness of the lay magistracy. Auld has reported. Will the Minister tell us what the Government's policies are for the future of the lay magistracy and whether it has a future at all under the Government?

Jane Kennedy: On every occasion that such points are made to me, I demonstrate not only in fine words but with examples how we are working hard to promote the magistracy, and to improve and modernise the service that magistrates give their communities. It is Opposition Members who question that commitment who cause magistrates to have doubts. I strongly recommend that the hon. Gentleman consider the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who, during proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, said that he had far more confidence in a judge and jury than in a bench of magistrates. Had we passed that Bill, it would have been living testament to the Government's commitment to the magistracy.

Rural Courtrooms (IT)

Mr. Simon Thomas: If he will make a statement on the use of information technology to support rural courtrooms. [159320]

The Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): New IT systems and services are being developed both for magistrates courts and county courts. The Libra system will link together all magistrates courts and allow links into other criminal justice agencies. On 15 January. I published a consultation paper on the development of IT in the civil courts, which I trust the hon. Member has read. I look forward to his response.

Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for that invitation to read his document. I shall read it assiduously because his Department's proposals for rural courthouses in my constituency are very poor indeed. The proposal to close two or three courthouses in Ceredigion is at least being fought by the local county council. It has made an interesting suggestion on the use of IT to support rural courthouses: a main courthouse for the county, with satellite courthouses linked by IT systems. Will the Minister welcome that? Will he also give an assurance that financial considerations will not stand in the way of such additional and innovative solutions, which may deliver justice to rural areas? Finally, following his consultation paper, will he tell us what guidance he is

likely to produce to encourage magistrates courts committees to look beyond financial questions and consider innovative solutions?

Mr. Lock: The purpose of magistrates courts is to deliver justice. I am sure that local justice is an important consideration, whether in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or in any part of the United Kingdom. I am grateful to the county council for its co-operation and for taking advantage of the opportunities presented by IT. That is precisely what the consultation paper is all about, as he will see when he gets around to reading it. I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, who will consider the appeal in due course, will consider those matters seriously. I am grateful for all the work that has gone into ensuring that a large measure of local justice is still delivered in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister tell us what access and technology will be available for the rural courts that have closed under his Government's stewardship, especially those in Bakewell, Ashbourne and Matlock? That means that there is no local justice in West Derbyshire.

Mr. Lock: The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the closure of magistrates courts, but such decisions are taken by local magistrates courts committees under legislation passed by the previous Conservative Government. As for the county courts, the strategy in the "Modernising the Civil Courts" Green Paper is aimed at increasing the number of places at which hearings can take place to increase the availability of local justice, not to close courts. The strategy is to develop local justice, not to restrict it.

Access to Justice (Macclesfield)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What recent action the Lord Chancellor's Department has taken to improve access to justice in Macclesfield; and if she will make a statement.[159322]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement, but it might take me a little time, as we have been extremely busy in improving access to justice in Macclesfield.
The Cheshire community legal service partnership, which covers the Macclesfield area, has been formed to improve access to legal information and advice throughout the county. In Cheshire, the first phase of the project to have a single, national, standard computer system in magistrates courts was delivered in February 2001. A private finance initiative project is in the pipeline. In the county courts in Macclesfield—as elsewhere in England and Wales—the court service is examining how best to use modern technology to improve and increase access outside the traditional court environment.

Mr. Winterton: As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) flattered the Minister, may I do the same and thank her for that extremely helpful reply? However, she knows that if justice is to be effective, it needs to be local. She talks about a private finance


initiative project for a new magistrates court in Macclesfield. Will she give a commitment today that that is part of a firm plan, subject to all authorities agreeing, and that we will have a new magistrates court in Macclesfield to serve the town and the surrounding area?

Jane Kennedy: The details of the project are still being considered. It would be wrong to give a commitment at this stage to proposals before I have been able to consider them. However, I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments, as I will to the representations that I know that he will make in future.

Rural Magistrates Courts

Mr. Owen Paterson: If she will make a statement on the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on rural magistrates courts. [159323]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): Data provided by the magistrates courts committees in the period October to December last year show that there has been no significant impact so far on the operation of the magistrates courts as a result of the Human Rights Act.

Mr. Paterson: What an absurd reply! Five years ago, £350,000 was spent modernising the old school buildings in Oswestry. The court now faces a bill of £197,450 to make it compliant with the Human Rights Act. Every time I ask the Minister where the money should come from, she says that it is down to the magistrates courts committee. That is rubbish. The cost is being forced on local magistrates by central Government. Will she explain why the Government will not stump up the money?

Jane Kennedy: Many smaller or remote magistrates courts lack suitable facilities. The standard of accommodation and facilities provided in a court is only one of a number of factors that magistrates courts committees consider. The Human Rights Act has had very little bearing on those considerations. Setting aside the hon. Gentleman's pre-election hysteria, the answer to his question is simple and straightforward: the prophets of doom who predicted that the implementation of the Human Rights Act would bring chaos to the courts have been proved wrong. That is due to two years of careful preparation by the Government and the courts. The smooth incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998 has been a major achievement of the Government and it is one of which I am very proud.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

The President of the Council was asked—

Oral Questions

Mr. John Bercow: If she will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the procedure for the tabling of oral questions. [159331]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Not at present. The Procedure Committee has considered the matter many times. I am pleased to say that Mr. Speaker has responded to the recommendations in its most recent report by extending the deadline for tabling oral questions to 6.30 pm on a trial basis.

Mr. Bercow: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's characteristically mellifluous and soothing reply. Given the worrying growth of government by remote control and the new extended deadline of 6.30 pm for the tabling of oral questions, will he comprehensively rubbish the idea of tabling questions by e-mail and agree instead that Members who wish to table questions can reasonably be expected to continue to bestir themselves to plod along the corridors of the Palace of Westminster until they reach the Table Office to do so?

Mr. Tipping: There is no need to plod very far. There are no plans for the tabling of questions by e-mail or fax.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Why do we not do away with the tabling of questions and take a leaf out of the book of the Canadian House of Commons, where questioners are chosen exclusively by the Speaker? The debate is spontaneous the whole Ministry is present and it stops the planted question. In addition, Ministers from the other place should attend this House to answer questions, and vice versa. It is nonsense for Ministers to come here and pretend that they know the answers when they do not. Ministers should answer for themselves. If Gus Macdonald is made a Cabinet Minister, I want him answering questions here.

Mr. Tipping: I must confess that I am surprised that my hon. Friend knows anything about planted questions, because he is a man of integrity and comes up with his questions himself. My right hon. Friend in the Lords, whom my hon. Friend mentioned, is already a Minister. There were abuses in the past, but the present system of tabling questions in Person seems to protect the House from any abuse.

Executive Accountability

Mr. Graham Brady: What steps she proposes to take to improve the ability of the House to hold the Executive to account. [159332]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I propose to continue the experimental sittings in Westminster Hall, which have given Back Benchers more than double the number of daytime Adjournment debates and increased fourfold opportunities to debate Select Committee reports. Those steps must be seen alongside other steps in the extension of scrutiny that have already been made. They include broadening the remit of the European Scrutiny Committee, setting up a Select Committee on Environmental Audit and a Joint Committee on Human Rights, agreeing to the Procedure Committee's proposals for the improved scrutiny of treaties and increasing the opportunities for pre-legislative scrutiny.

Mr. Brady: Given the strength of support from Members on both sides of the House for the


implementation of the Liaison Committee report "Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive", is it not a sign of the contempt in which the Government hold the House of Commons that we have been denied a free vote on that report in this Parliament?

Mrs. Beckett: No, that is nonsense. The report has been debated, as the hon. Gentleman correctly said. He is right that many Members support the proposals in the report, but many other Members have great reservations about many of the proposals. On bow the issues can be thrashed out, I point out that they have been debated and no doubt they will be discussed again.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will have considered the way in which the Opposition have conducted their business this Session. If she is Chairman of the Modernisation Committee it the new Parliament, could she not propose that the Opposition use their time far more effectively instead of engaging in time wasting? They would then be able to carry out their function of scrutiny, about which they protest so much.

Mrs. Beckett: There is some justice in my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope very much that the Conservative party will have the benefit of a few more years in which to build up its experience of opposition. Given its propensity to knee-jerk reaction to any proposals of the type that have been mentioned, that is sorely needed so that it can effectively use the time of the House for scrutiny. The Opposition attempt to do and say anything that they hope will embarrass the Government as opposed to considering what will be workable and to the advantage of the House as a whole.

Sir George Young: The Lord President will know that the Opposition have committed themselves to a number of important reforms in this area. Can she assure us that, when Parliament is dissolved, the Labour party will also go into the next election fizzing with new ideas about how this place can hold the Government to account and seeking to reverse the damage that it has done in the past four years?

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the Conservative party is committed to a number of reforms. It had 18 years to implement many of them, but it utterly failed to do so. I assure him that we keep under review the proposals that have been made. If we are returned to power, we hope to build on the improvements and the greater availability of scrutiny from which the House has already benefited

Programme Motions

Mrs. Anne Campbell: What representations she has received about programme motions for legislation. [159333]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): A number of Conservative Members have continued to oppose any use of programme motions, but I believe that many Members consider that the Sessional Orders do not

go far enough. Refinements to the present experimental procedures have been suggested by the Modernisation Committee in its first report of this Session.

Mrs. Campbell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has she had time to analyse the points that have been made during programme motion debates? Does she agree that they tend to be repetitive and that we should consider whether those programme motions are really necessary?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. She takes a close interest in those matters, so I am sure that she knows that that issue was discussed by the Modernisation Committee and lay behind the production of our most recent report, which commanded support across the Committee and from all parties. Sadly, however, on this occasion, that support was not unanimous.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Lady accept that Conservative Members have opposed programme motions because they are guillotines in disguise and were introduced without regard for the nature or complexity of the Bills in question and without any proper consultation with the Opposition? In fact, they are a disgraceful treatment of Parliament.

Mrs. Beckett: No, I am afraid I do not accept any of those points.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the matter is not one that should be debated on a party basis? The quality of the scrutiny that legislation receives ought to be important for the House of Commons. Is it not a sad commentary that the cumulative effect of many changes has been to remove better scrutiny? The suggestion that somehow programme motions should be debated without talking about programming shows a sad want of understanding of what happens in the House.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has from the beginning expressed opposition to the experiment. She is right that different points of view exist on both sides of the House. However, I simply repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). There was support from all parties for the Modernisation Committee's most recent report. It is by no means insignificant that the present and past Chairs of the Select Committee on Procedure, both of whom are experienced, supported it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While supporting the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in her desire to achieve better scrutiny in the House, may I ask the Leader of the House whether she will guarantee that the recommendations of the recently issued first report of the Modernisation Committee—which she chairs—will be implemented? She will be aware that there was some cross-party support for the report, not least from me, because the way in which we introduce programming is not working, as she knows. It is vital that the recommendations and guidance


of the Modernisation Committee are implemented at an early stage of the next Parliament, whichever party is in government.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the fact that, to a certain extent, there is an understanding. Although I would not venture to agree with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I accept that we have all been learning from the initial experiment and that improvements can be made to achieve genuinely better opportunities for scrutiny. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will be the first to remind me that it is not for me to say what the House will decide, but I take his point that the House should have an opportunity to pronounce on the recommendations of the most recent report of the Modernisation Committee and that, as always, that should be done on a free vote.

Modernisation

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What further proposals she plans to put before the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. [159335]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Modernisation Committee has already instigated radical experiments with Westminster Hall, programming and deferred Divisions. I expect the Committee's major task to be monitoring those experiments, although we continue to discuss other issues, such as the use of electronic voting.

Mr. Swayne: That is regrettable. The right hon. Lady will be aware that many Labour Members are exhausted by the pace of reform, particularly the late night sittings to which, perversely, it has given rise. Can we not all have a rest from that business?

Mrs. Beckett: I think that the notion that the reforms have created greater difficulties instead of easing some of them is not wholly shared. Of course, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, although I note that he, like other Members, has taken advantage of the new opportunities in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Martin Salter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Labour Members thoroughly welcome the modernisation process? Those of us who were first elected in 1997 still find it bemusing that, while it would be an act of treason if the IRA or the Ulster Volunteer Force put a drug in the water supply of the House of Commons to ensure that Ministers were tired,

irritable and unable to concentrate through lack of sleep, until we fully modernise the House, we have made sleep deprivation a constitutional requirement.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I merely say to him what I have often said in other debates in this House: people are rarely more eloquent in the early hours of the morning, although unfortunately, all too often, they think they are.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I put it to the Leader of the House that one thing that should not be modernised is the opportunity for individual Members of Parliament to raise individual cases in this House and with Ministers in other ways? As an example, I hope that we will maintain the opportunity for me to raise the case of a constituent who has been asked to wait 15 months for an appointment at a hospital. For all the legislation that we have, for all the glitz and the glamour, each Member of Parliament must fight to ensure that our national health service is not a national waiting service.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman uses the opportunity skilfully to raise a slightly different point. Of course he is right that individual Members of Parliament must always have the facility to raise cases of the kind to which he refers. Indeed, many of us raised them frequently—much more frequently than is necessary today—during the years in which his party was in power.

Pay and Allowances

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What her policy is on the recommendations of the Review Body on Senior Salaries relating to the pay of hon. Members and the office costs allowance. [159338]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commmons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Decisions on the recommendations are a matter for the House.

Mr. Winterton: As, the right hon. Lady says, such decisions are indeed matter for the House. However, when will the recommendations be put to the House so that it can take a decision? Members in all parts of the House believe that the recommendations should be considered, and that such consideration should take place in this Parliament and not the next.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I know that his view is shared in other parts of the House. He asks me when the recommendations will be debated. All I can say, as I would characteristically for a business question, is that it will not, I fear, be next week.

Transbus International

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the major announcement by TransBus International plc, formerly Plaxton Coach and Bus at Eastfield, Scarborough, on Thursday 3 May to make 700 redundancies and to withdraw the operations of the company from my constituency.
The Eastfield plant has long had a reputation for producing the best-quality coaches and buses in the world. The work force are highly skilled and make a significant contribution not only to the Scarborough local economy but to the national economy. If the factory closes for good, not only will 700 Plaxton workers lose their livelihood but the wider community and economy of Scarborough and North Yorkshire will be forced to terminate the employment of the people at the plant as well as that of suppliers, sub-contractors and people who work in professional and business services.
Early estimates of the damage to the Scarborough economy indicate that £50 million each year will be lost as a result of one in every 20 workers losing their jobs. At a stroke, Scarborough is becoming the worst unemployment black spot in Yorkshire and the Humber. The decision leaves us 42 miles from any potential alternative employment.
On Thursday evening, our confidence was broken and the community felt on the edge of bankruptcy. By Friday afternoon, however, thanks to the rapid response of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness, we had a glimmer of hope.
I believe that this matter deserves urgent attention in the House now, to ensure that the fullest attention of Parliament can be given to this important regional and national matter. The voice of Parliament needs to be heard. The matter is specific to the national debate on Britain's economic performance, as the likelihood is that foreign competitors will steal the important contribution that Plaxton has made to supplying coaches for Britain and the world.
The implications for the balance of payments are unacceptable and draconian. May we have a debate, Mr. Speaker, if not today, then in tile near future?

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said and I must give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot, therefore, submit the application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has just announced that the date of the general election will be 7 June. Given the grave events in Northern Ireland today, have you received any requests from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for the opportunity to speak to us? You will be aware that it has been stated that the leader of the Ulster Unionist party will resign if decommissioning does not start by July. No. 10 Downing street has already said that that would be a grave move with regard to the peace process. Have you received any request from the Secretary of State to come and speak to us today?

Mr. Speaker: The answer is no.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the announcement made outside the House by the Prime Minister about a quarter of an hour ago—as it happens, it was made in my constituency—I have two questions. First, have you requested that either the Prime Minister or anybody else should make a formal announcement to Parliament about the Government's intentions? is it not more appropriate that the announcement should be made here, rather than in any school, however good it or the constituency in which it is situated may be? Secondly, do you have any indication of when the Leader of the House will inform us of the statement's implications for our business? Should she not make such a statement at the first available opportunity?

Mr. Speaker: It is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide where he makes the statement regarding the general election. The hon. Gentleman is a very fortunate man; it was 1964 when I last had a Prime Minister in my constituency. On his other question, I can tell him that 1 understand that the Leader of the House is coming to the House at approximately 7 o'clock this evening to make a statement. I hope that that is helpful to him.

Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the general election has been announced and the Leader of the House is coming to the Dispatch Box to make a statement, and in light of the fact that many businesses in our constituencies have been blighted by foot and mouth, whether they are involved in farming or in tourism, will you encourage the Leader of the House to make time before Parliament is dissolved for a statement to be made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Minister in charge of the rural affairs taskforce? Such a statement is needed to ensure that constituents who have been directly affected by the foot and mouth blight may know during the election period about the assistance that they can get. They cannot wait another four weeks until the election is over.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Ministers concerned.

Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to give notice of this point
of order, even though I did so a relatively short time ago. During this Parliament. a number of complaints have been referred by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to the Standards and Privileges Committee. Are you concerned that those complaints do not seem to have been dealt with with the firmness that was applied to similar complaints made during the previous Parliament? Most recently, such a complaint has led to the censuring of a former Minister, but there is no proposal to inflict any punishment for three months, which ensures that the general election will be left way behind. Are you satisfied that the Committee is doing its work properly, bearing in mind the importance of ensuring that a Labour-dominated Committee in seen to be properly impartial when Labour Members appear before it?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Committee and also for the House. It is not a matter for the Speaker.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I stress that every report in this Parliament has been unanimous. That was not the case in the previous Parliament.

Discrimination Against Older People

Mr. Roger Berry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make discrimination against older people unlawful; to provide for the creation of an Age Discrimination Council; and for connected purposes.
Discrimination on the ground of age has attracted growing attention in recent years. Indeed, it has also attracted increasing popularity as a topic for ten-minute Bills. Less than a for night ago, on 25 April, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) sought leave to introduce a Bill to establish an age equality commission to advise the Government on discrimination against older people. He also did that in July of last year. A fortnight ago, the House agreed the Question without a Division.
Tomorrow, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) will seek leave to bring in a Bill to make some provisions with regard to age discrimination. I do not know what they are, but taken with other initiatives, that suggests that there is substantial support in the House for further action on the subject. Perhaps that is not surprising given the age diversity in this place, where hon. Members' ages range from the early 20s to the 80s. I am sure that we all agree that that diversity is welcome.
Most hon. Members' minds are currently on the forthcoming general election. Nowadays, national campaigning organisations tend to produce manifestos. I should briefly like to draw hon. Members' attention to Age Concern's manifesto, entitled, "Dignity, Security, Opportunity". It is an excellent document both for its clarity and the strength of its arguments. It expresses one of its five priorities in the following words:
ending discrimination against older people—by law—in work, health, public services and the consumer market".
That is precisely what my Bill seeks to do.
Many other organisations also campaign on age discrimination. LEAD—the Lobby to End Age Discrimination—held a seminar in the Palace of Westminster in November last year. Like many hon. Members, I was pleased to sponsor and participate in it. Representatives from the three Front Benches contributed productively to it. Another organisation, the Association of Retired and Person s over 50, drafted the Bill that I want to introduce today.
What would the Bill do? It would make discrimination against older people unlawful. for example. in employment, access to health care, education and training, credit and other goods and services. It would set up an age discrimination council to advise the Government on detailed codes of practice. The provisions are similar to those in existing anti-discrimination legislation.
Why is it necessary? Many people over 50 have difficulties in finding a job, even when they have extensive qualifications and enormous experience. Some, because of their age, have difficulty in obtaining credit, hiring a car or gaining access to other services on fair terms.
Many of my constituents are convinced that they are discriminated against because they are older. They stress that point whenever I meet the local branch of Age Concern, the South Gloucestershire Senior Citizens Forum, or other pensioners' groups, as I frequently do.
Age discrimination has moved up the political agenda and it is not difficult to understand why. First, the population of our country is growing older. There are approximately 20 million people aged 50 and over in the United Kingdom, representing 40 per cent. of the adult population. Consequently, older people realise that they have growing political influence and they rightly want their opinions to be taken into account.
Secondly, there is growing evidence of widespread age discrimination. In its recent evidence to the Education and Employment Committee—which I congratulate on producing a very good report on age discrimination in employment—the Department for Education and Employment drew attention to a survey conducted six months after the code of practice on age diversity had been introduced. The survey found that one in five older people believed that they had been discriminated against in their current job or in a job application simply because of their age. Discrimination was most likely to be reported in the area of recruitment, in which 12 per cent. of older people felt that their age was the key factor militating against them when applying for jobs.
The Department for Education and Employment has also pointed out that many people leaving work before reaching the state pension age have not done so voluntarily, and in the past 20 year the employment rate among those over 50 has fallen dramatically. In 1979, 84 per cent. of men between 50 years old and retirement age were in employment. By 1997, that figure had fallen to 67 per cent. By last year, it had risen modestly to 69 per cent., owing to the substantial increase in employment under the present Government. Nevertheless, it is clear from the trend over the past 20 years that older people who wish to work are increasingly being denied that opportunity.
A further reason why age discrimination is attracting increasing attention is simply that it differs from other forms of discrimination in one important respect: there is

no law against it, as there is for discrimination on the grounds of race, gender or disability. It is perfectly possible for an employer to refuse someone a job, promotion or training, not because of his or her ability, but because of his or her age.
The Government have, of course, taken some action to address this problem, and are, indeed, the first Government to take the issue seriously. In 1999, a voluntary code of practice on age diversity in employment was introduced, and last year the Government welcomed the EU directive on equal treatment in employment that will introduce legislation to outlaw this kind of discrimination in employment by 2006. Legislation to tackle age discrimination in employment within five years is better than no commitment at all, but five years is a long time to wait—and what about discrimination in areas other than employment?
Discrimination on the ground of age, like any other form of discrimination, is wrong. To deny people employment or access to services for no reason other than their age is unacceptable and robs us of the enormous economic and social benefits of age diversity. In my view, legislation to tackle age discrimination is required as soon as possible. I hope that the House will support that view this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger Berry, Valerie Davey, Mr. Paul Flynn, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Ms Linda Perham, Mr. Lawrie Quinn, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. David Winnick and Ann Clwyd.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OLDER PEOPLE

Mr. Roger Berry accordingly presented a Bill to make discrimination against older people unlawful; to provide for the creation of an Age Discrimination Council; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May, and to be printed [Bill 95].

Finance Bill [Ways and Means]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move,

Limited liability partnerships

That provision may be made in the Finance Bill about limited liability partnerships.

The resolution covers measures that build on and clarify the tax rules introduced by the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2000. First, the measures amplify the rules that provide for limited liability partnerships to be treated as partnerships for tax purposes so as to remove doubts over how the rules might operate in certain circumstances, such as liquidation of the limited liability partnership. The clause confirms the guidelines published in December, which were widely welcomed. Secondly, they prevent tax loss when a limited liability partnership carries on the business of making investments, particularly property investments.

The substantive measures will apply from 6 April 2001, the date on which businesses could first incorporate as limited liability partnerships under the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2000. A measure to prevent capital gains tax loss will apply from 3 May, the day on which these clauses were published.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: This is a somewhat surreal event, not least because our discussion is due to be repeated in Committee in not many minutes' time. We shall reserve our substantive points—which, I am glad to say, are not deep or wide—for that debate. We understand that the measure is essentially intended to create fiscal neutrality as between partnerships that have limited liability and partnerships that do not, which strikes us as a perfectly reasonable principle.
I hope the Financial Secretary will not think it ungenerous of me to say that it is slightly regrettable that we are debating the proposal at such a breakneck pace. I do not suggest for a moment that anyone else might not have got into the same difficulty; nevertheless, I harbour a doubt, or worry. I fear that, in a few months, we shall all wake up one morning and realise that an aspect of the Finance Bill—perhaps more than one, quite apart from the aggregates tax, which we already know is loathsome—was ineptly or improperly enacted, conceivably against the wishes of Ministers, simply because we had such a short time in which to grapple with the details.
There must be some way in which a parliamentary democracy as old and experienced as ours can devise mechanisms to avoid having to deal with a Finance Bill so rapidly just before a general election. I suspect that whichever party finds itself on whichever side of the House after the election may have cause to rue the speed of our proceedings.

Mr. John Bercow: This is a truly fascinating matter, and I share the concern cautiously expressed by my hon. Friend about the circumscription of debate on it. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that it is important for us to know what representations, and how many, the Government have received about what might

prove to be an innocuous measure, in order to kill stone dead any notion that a cynic—obviously not me—might have that it is merely the brainchild of that distinguished group of people known as the Treasury anoraks?

Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend has had such a reputation for eloquence and coherence in the current Parliament that it is hardly necessary for me to say how much I admired both the length of his sentence and his perfect articulation of it. As far as we are able to determine, the industry in this case—or rather the range of industries in which partnerships prevail in his case—has been consulted, and is broadly content with the proposals.
Conservative Members have had serious difficulties with many aspects of many Finance Bills produced by this Government—and, as I said earlier, with the aggregates tax in the Bill that we are discussing. Our objections, however, have never been directed towards those whom my hon. Friend calls the Treasury anoraks. Treasury and Inland Revenue officials have done a magnificent job in dealing with the inordinately difficult business of trying to translate the Government's wildly over-ambitious taxing plans into practice, in a series of dizzying Finance Bills They deserve our sympathy and admiration. We just hope that, in future, after the general election, we shall have the opportunity to spare them from such activities—by reducing rather than increasing the burden, and by reducing rather than increasing the ingenuity and complexity of tax legislation. As I said, however, the specific provision that we are debating does not fall into any of these latter lamentable categories.
When everyone has bad time to examine the details of this Finance Bill at more leisure, and if we find that there are serious lacunae, I hope that, together, whichever of us find ourselves on the Treasury Bench after the general election, we shall be a able to cure those deficiencies. We certainly have not had the time that was due before the general election to do I that.
I shall not detain the House further on the provision. As I said, slightly later today, in Committee, we shall return to the substance of the details of the limited liability partnerships new clause.

Mr. John Burnett: I had conduct of the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2000 during its progress in the House. The Government were represented in those debates by a Department of Trade and Industry Minister, the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, and it is good to have a Treasury Minister to discuss the provision today on the Floor of the House.
I have always been assured that the principle is that limited liability partnerships are taxed in pretty much the same manner as existing partnerships. Nevertheless, I should like to make a few detailed points on the taxation of limited liability partnerships. I am doing so now, as I may not have an opportunity to do so later today, in Committee.
First and foremost, he Financial Secretary will recall that, in the Finance Act 1998, changes were made to prevent firms that were on the cash basis from staying on the cash basis. There was a transitional period of about eight years, I believe, in which cash-basis firms would go on to a full-earnings basis. Many of those firms, or at least


some of them, will become limited liability partnerships in that eight-year transitional period It would be good to hear the Financial Secretary confirm that, if they do become limited liability partnerships in that eight-year transitional period, the transitional relief will continue.
Secondly, I should like to have the Minister's confirmation on the attribution of capital gains and losses. Will he confirm that, even in cast s of liquidation, the members of a limited liability partnership will be subject to capital gains tax in accordance with their beneficial interests in the assets disposed of, rather than their shares in the limited liability partnership?
The third point concerns statements of practice and extra-statutory concessions, some of which currently apply to existing partnerships. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that those extra-statutory concessions and those statements of practice will apply to limited liability partnerships just as they apply to existing partnerships.
In relation to a statement of practice, for example, although it may be an extra-statutory concession, assets may be owned by members of a limited liability partnership—perhaps by one member of the limited liability partnership, or by two members if the partnership consists of more than two members, and so forth—and leased to the limited liability partnership. Will the Minister confirm that those assets will count as business or agricultural property for purposes of 100 per cent. inheritance tax relief? Will he also confirm that the assets will count as business property for purposes of capital gains tax roll-over relief, for example?
I realise that those points are relatively esoteric. I join my colleague the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) in saying that we should very much have liked to have an opportunity today, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, for a detailed debate on the tax aspects of limited liability partnerships. Nevertheless, I have flagged up three or four important points which will affect the commercial judgment of individuals who are considering entering into limited liability partnerships. I look forward to hearing the comments of the Financial Secretary on the points that I have made, either when he responds today or perhaps at a later date.

4 pm

Mr. Timms: The House will be aware that we need to agree the resolution in order to allow for a debate in Committee later. I hope that it will be possible to have a discussion of some of the points that have been raised in

the brief debate that we have just had. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for his tribute to the technical skills with which this and previous Finance Bills have been enacted during this Parliament. I agree with him about that. I can reassure him that this particular matter and new clauses 16 and 17 have been well considered. The intention to proceed with these matters was set out in paragraph 3.53 of the pre-Budget report last November. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that they did not cause much consternation then or since, and we have had a number of discussions and taken account of representations.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked me to confirm the principles that we are applying here, comparing the tax position of ordinary partnerships with limited liability partnerships. As we said in the pre-Budget report sent out on 8 November last year, in general, limited liability partnerships will be treated as partnerships for tax purposes and there has been no change in that policy. These measures expand and clarify the rules put in place by the Limited Liability Partnership Act—as he said, the hon. Gentleman served on the Standing Committee considering that Bill. Limited liability partnerships also prevent tax loss through investment and property investment, as announced in the pre-Budget report and confirmed in the Budget in March; so I do not think that there are any surprises here.
On the other point that the hon. Gentleman raised, I hope that he will catch the eye of the Chairman in the relevant Standing Committee and that there will be the opportunity for a discussion that will be expertly dealt with by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General.

Mr. Burnett: I am extremely grateful. The reason I raised these points on the Floor of the House is that I am serving on two Standing Committees concurrently and I can only be in one place at a time. If by any chance I am unable to catch the Chairman's eye in the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill, I hope that someone from the Treasury will reply to the points that I have raised.

Mr. Timms: I shall be glad to provide a written response to the hon. Gentleman on those points.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

Limited Liability Partnerships

That provision may be made in the Finance Bill about limited liability partnerships.

Orders of the Day — Private Security Industry Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 4

COMPLAINTS

'() Any person who has cause to complain of the conduct of a private security operative or approved contractor may lodge a written complaint to the Authority on the following grounds:

(a) that an operative or approved contractor has been convicted of a crime:
(b) that an operative or approved contractor has breached a provision of this Act or any regulations made under this Act;
(c) that an operative or approved contractor has been guilty of negligence or misconduct in the course to which the operative or approved contractor is licensed or approved;
(d) that the operative or approved contractor has breached the provisions of a code of conduct published by the Authority'.—[Mr. Bruce George.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bruce George: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Based on my reading of the debate in another place and on having served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, I am supremely confident that the Minister will not accept my new clause. I certainly understand the reasons for his reticence, which is due mainly to the fact that time is running out. Some weeks ago, I had to decide whether half a loaf was better than none; after some agonising, I decided on half a loaf—with the possibility of its dramatic expansion. I am not a cook, but there is always the possibility that, with careful nurturing and cooking, bread will expand. I hope that in time there will be more legislation.
There are one two gaps in the Bill, to put it mildly. New clause 4 would introduce a complaints procedure and enable the regulatory authority to establish a complaints committee. I hope that the need for that is self-evident, even if the proposal is not accepted. When the authority is set up, it will draft its working procedures and embark on an extensive process of consultation, which I am sure will show that a complaints committee has a place in the authority's committee structure.
My hopes that a similar provision would be included in the Bill were dashed, but the omission is not disastrous. The need for a complaints procedure is pretty clear, as there are an infinite number of possible causes for complaint. For example, an hon. Member might be duffed up by a security guard or badly advised by a private investigator; or his daughter might tell him that drugs were being distributed in a night club by a firm of bouncers in league with drug distributors; or a security guard who purported to be licensed might not be. The new clause lists other examples, and it would be superfluous to add to them.
Only part of the security industry will be regulated. The industry has been open to enormous criticism, much of it unfounded, but there has been no one to complain to. To whom can one complain in the period before the Bill is

enacted? I have no idea, and suspect that very few people know. There are many self-regulatory bodies, and people can seek advice about which one can help. No doubt those bodies have complaints procedure, but the overwhelming majority of companies in the private security industry belong to none of those regulatory bodies.
Let us take the example of a person who wants to complain about the firm that installed his alarm, but discovers that it does not belong to the British Security Industry Association or any other body. Where does he lodge his complaint? Should he turn to the local consumer protection department? Should he write a letter of complaint to the editor of a newspaper, or resort to a lawyer in an attempt o secure a legal claim against the company? The process is a patchwork and does not work.
Do the trade associations with a self-regulatory structure have teeth? How many firms have they slung out for breaching the rules? If recourse is had to the criminal courts, it will be difficult to secure evidence, and the case will be protracted.

Mr. John Bercow: In terms of the otherwise admirable construction of new clause 4, I am a little perturbed by what seems to be the mistaken insertion of "to" in the second line of subsection (c). Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to substitute "of for "to"? If the answer is no, can he enlighten me as to the purport of that subsection?

Mr. George: I had not spotted that. I shall look at the new clause carefully and, after the hon. Gentleman speaks, I will, with the approval of the Chair, intervene to correct any mistake.
When the industry is properly regulated, it will still produce a large number of complaints. I do not want to encourage frivolous complaints—if the regulatory authority feels that a complaint is frivolous or vexatious, it may not wish to proceed with it—and I do not want to establish a vast bureaucracy, but the complaints committee should be distant from the main body of the regulatory authority to give it a degree of independence.
The industry will metamorphose to achieve the standards that will be laid down and built upon by subordinate legislation. Many of the complaints that are inherent in the current process will become redundant and the industry will become more professional. Companies will become better; they will realise that their cards are to be marked and that if they commit misdemeanours or criminal acts they ruts the risk of having their licence withdrawn.
I hope that a code of practice will supplement the Bill's provisions. As I said in Committee, private security companies should not be the bases of campaign headquarters in any parliamentary election, as is the case in my constituency; that should not be within the scope of a security company's operations. A company should appear somewhat distant from the cut and thrust of an election.
I have no intention of boring the House with speeches of one hour and 20 minutes, as, regrettably, I did on Second Reading and in Committee. I am not a snooker player of any competence—my record break was nine, which included a black—but I know that a player must identify for the referee or opponent the pocket that he is


aiming for; that is certainly the case in pool. Every time I speak from now on, I shall indicate the time I will take. I have spoken for less than 10 minutes in moving the new clause, without much expectation of success.

Mr. Bercow: The self-effacement of the right hon. Gentleman is legendary in this House, but I am bound to say that there is no justification for it. As he knows, and as I am happy to communicate to other hon. Members, I invariably find his speeches racy and intoxicating in equal measure. As we are in the dying embers of this Parliament, it is right that we should pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. Not only is he a first-class Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence—a point on which I shall not expatiate, Mr Speaker—but, more particularly, he is without question the foremost authority on the subject of the private security industry in this House. He and I enjoyed a chat on the subject the other day. He profited nothing from our exchange, but I profited a great deal.

Mr. George: I caution the hon. Gentleman against further eulogies; otherwise, his speech may appear in my election material, and my opponent may complain to the party chairman. I urge him to refrain from further compliments if his future in his party is to be secured.

Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his protective hand, but, as he knows, I am a modest and self-effacing fellow and I know that 1 have a great future behind me and a great past in front of me. None the less, I appreciate his tender care.
The nub of the matter is accountability. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to press the motion to a vote, but if he does we are minded to support it. We are concerned to have a lever whereby we can ensure the effective accountability of private security operatives. I long ago gave up seeking to penetrate the inner recesses of ministerial minds, but the Minister might say, "Ah,' tis implicit. No one is arguing that these people should be able to operate without let or hindrance, with no requirement to be subject to scrutiny or assessment."
It is certainly the case that the granting of a licence to operate in the private security industry is not a blank cheque. For example, if an operative conducts himself inefficiently, or worse, is guilty of malfeasance or corruption, he is likely to be deprived of that licence. These matters were touched on briefly in Committee and I am well aware that the fact that someone is a licensed operative does not mean that he or she will always remain so, but the right hon. Gentleman has usefully highlighted what I might call the issue of transparency or, if I dare use a late 1980s term, glasnost.
I am an enthusiast for glasnost. Are we to know that there is a procedure for complaints? Will there be a procedure for public complaints? Will someone who is genuinely dissatisfied with or anxious about the performance of an operative's duties be able to go to the authority and express both the fact of and the grounds for that anxiety or dissatisfaction?
There is an analogy with the police complaints procedure. I am an enthusiast for the police, as Conservative Members are on almost all occasions and as Labour Members are periodically. There would be

consensus in the House on the importance of having a complaints procedure, of its being clear and transparent and of people having the maximum opportunity to know about it and be able to use it.
We are talking about an embryonic regulatory regime that is being instituted very late in the day compared with those that are already up and running in other countries. People should know what their entitlements are.
I have not discussed new clause 4 with the right hon. Gentleman but I have read it several times, and his simple purpose seems to be to let people know that there is a chance to complain, to explain how they can do so and to guarantee that there is a more or less approved, regular and satisfactory method investigating those complaints. I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman any further than I have already done, but in this context, as I have had reason often to observe in others, the point that he makes is so blindingly obvious and sensible that only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to see it.
The Minister is an extraordinarily clever person. He is very important, very senior and very industrious, assiduous and ambitious—a man with many commitments and a full diary. I do not doubt that he will want to explain either why he agrees with the right hon. Gentleman and say that it was merely an occasional slip of memory that prevented him from including such a provision originally, or why, despite his brilliance, assiduity, dexterity and ambition, he is unwise enough to disagree with his senior colleague.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I shall disappoint the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) by saying that his kind remarks will not be included in my election address, despite the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). There is an oleaginous quality to the hon. Gentleman that would not convince the discerning electors of Norwich, South to give weight to his judgment on such matters.

Mr. Bercow: I am genuinely taken aback by the Minister's comments. I do not want to prolong this exchange, Mr. Speaker, because you might become restive, and we do not want that to happen, but what I said in all seriousness about the right hon. Gentleman's expertise was very sincerely meant. I have long been an admirer of the right hon. Gentleman—frankly, since I came out of short trousers and observed politics from 1980 onwards. I am a trifle taken aback by what the Minister has said because although I have periodically been accused—unfairly, but I make no complaint—by Ministers and other Labour Members of being obnoxious, I have never been accused of being oleaginous.

Mr. Clarke: I was commenting on the hon. Gentleman's remarks about me. I completely accept that his comments about my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South were made in all seriousness. Indeed, I was going to make the same remark. Neither the House nor the Committee has been bored at any stage by my right hon. Friend's contributions because, in almost all circumstances, they have brought light to our proceedings. I say that genuinely, and he should not feel that he has bored anyone in any way.
I want to say a word about the missing half loaf that my right hon. Friend mentioned. I support Norwich City football club and am one of its season ticket holders. I take my cooking advice from Delia Smith, who is the catering secretary of a small organisation called Canaries at Westminster, which supports Norwich City football club. I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on cooking, and I think that he would agree that the missing half loaf in his assessment of the Bill falls into two categories.
One category is made up of the areas of genuine disagreement between himself and the Government about exactly how far and how fast to proceed. Such matters include, for example, which sectors of the industry should be regulated and which should not, and at what time, and some aspects of the regulatory regime, such as whether the industry should be regulated through a quango or directly. However, those genuine disagreements have been more about pace than about direction.
The other missing quarter of the loaf is made up of things that are implicit in the Bill, but are not made explicit. I suggest that new clause 4 deals with that aspect of the proposals, rather than with any difference of opinion, such as those that we have discussed in Committee, because we accept that the effective discharge of the authority's duties to license only fit and proper persons will inevitably mean that it will need to establish an effective complaints procedure against licence holders and/or approved contractors.
The authority will need to be able to listen to, and investigate complaints made against, anyone who seeks a licence in the first place, or who seeks to renew a licence. The views of the public and customers will be important in that regard. More widely, the authority's general duties to keep under review the industry, the operation of the licensing system and the legislation in general will again mean that it will need to keep its ear close to the ground so as to find out exactly how the legislation is operating. A complaints mechanism—and, indeed, a wider vehicle for other types of public comment, not just complaints—will be an important and necessary contribution to the authority's discharge of all those responsibilities.
The authority, like any other effective public body, will need to establish a complaints procedure for matters within its remit. I can give an assurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South that the Government will build such a complaints procedure into planning to establish the authority. Furthermore, in the extremely unlikely event—so unlikely that it is not foreseeable—that an appropriate complaints mechanism were not set up by the authority, the Secretary of State could direct the authority under the provisions of clause 2 to establish one. I give an assurance on behalf of this Government—and the hon. Member for Buckingham implied the same on behalf of the Opposition—that such a direction would be issued by Government in such a case.
In keeping with the framework approach that we have adopted with the legislation, we do not, however, consider it necessary for such a requirement to appear in the Bill. It is important, but, as we discussed in Committee,

our approach has been to focus on the outcomes that we want from the authority, rather than to over-prescribe the precise means by which they may be achieved.

Mr. Bercow: I think that we have had an assurance that the complaints procedure will apply all the time, and not only within the time-limited periods in which somebody is either applying for a licence or seeking renewal of it, but will the Minister confirm that he has ideas in mind for developing the complaints procedure, culled from the practice of other professional services? Can he offer us some inkling of those ideas?

Mr. Clarke: I can give the general assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks that the complaints process will cover the range of complaints that could arise. We do not have in our back pock a particular form for that process, but it will be culled from the best practice of similar national bodies to try to establish the best form for the complaints regime.
I urge my right hon Friend to consider withdrawing his new clause. I give him the assurance that this Government will build a complaints procedure into our plans for establishing the authority. In the unlikely event that the authority does not establish an appropriate mechanism, the Secretary of State will be ready to direct it, under the provisions of clause 2, to establish such a procedure. To use even warmer words, I might say that we do not believe that such an authority could operate at all unless it operated an effective complaints procedure.

Mr. Bruce George: I noted a slight altercation between my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I would have liked to join in, but oleaginous is not a word that I use regularly. I have been called many things but never that by my constituents, and I suspect that most of them are as oblivious of the etymology of that word as I am. I shall look it up and if it is so abusive I shall belatedly come to the assistance of the hon. Gentleman.
Once an election has been called is not the best time to become a rebel, and I do not propose to divide the House. I have received assurances on the main points, although I remain sceptical about some earlier promises. The Minister will go on to higher things—I shall not say better things, because looking after the private security industry is a noble task. I certainly accept his assurances. I apologise for the slight error in the new clause; as the hon. Member for Buckingham pointed out, his knowledge of the English language is greater than mine—he actually knows what oleaginous means. Subsection (c) should state that the
contractor has been guilty of negligence or misconduct in the course of which the operative or approved contractor is licensed or approved.
I hope that the record is clear.
With the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

REGULATION HARMONISATION COMMITTEE

'The Authority shall establish a regulation harmonisation committee with representatives from government departments and other relevant bodies for the purpose of developing and harmonising security standards.'.—[Mr. Bruce George]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bruce George: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is my second and final proposed change to the Bill. Under the new clause:
The Authority shall establish a regulation harmonisation committee with representatives from government departments and other relevant bodies".
In a similar proposal that was not selected for debate in the Standing Committee, I used the phrase "liaison committee". As I am a member of the Select Committee on Liaison, perhaps that was not the ideal wording. Perhaps the Liaison Committee would have thought that additional functions would be bestowed on it. I meant no confusion.
In the less than eight minutes available for my speech, I hope that my reason for proposing the new clause will be obvious. I have often been guilty of arguing that the private security industry—unlike almost every other industry in the world—is wholly unregulated and unaccountable. Strictly, that was and is true, as other people have also pointed out. However, the security industry is enormous, and only some of it has been brought within the orbit of this Bill. As much of the industry is outside as is inside—that is one of the main deficiencies of the measure.
Even more obvious to me, however, is the fact that a vast sector of the private security "industry" falls within the scope of the public sector. For example, probably as many people are engaged in physical guarding, investigation, installation and monitoring of equipment and information security in Departments, Government agencies and local government as in the private sector. An enormous number of public sector personnel have job descriptions almost identical to those in the sectors of private security that will eventually be covered by the measure.
In many countries, the public sector is subject to the same regulatory standards as the private sector. In all honesty, therefore, one must realise that the security industry is well entrenched in the public sector. The reality is that the Government regulate their own areas of competence extremely well; they look after the private security in their own orbit quite well. However, that does not mean that they are good payers. Until recently, some of the worst paid personnel in private security were employed in Departments.
Furthermore, I certainly would not argue with anyone who believes that security in the museum and art gallery sectors, for example, is infinitely superior to that in other sectors. I had a good friend who was consultant. Despite my frequent protestations and pleadings for him to divulge the contents of a research project that he undertook on a particular museum. he would not go into any detail. However, he told me that the situation was truly appalling. He briefly mentioned that more people were engaged in guarding the museum, which is enclosed

and closed for half the day, than there are policemen in my constituency or, indeed, the three constituencies that cover Walsall. He took the full secret to his grave.
I am not arguing that outside the private sector the activities that come within the scope of central and local government are infinitely better regulated. However, in some cases they are. Departments have tried to save for themselves precautions to prevent them from being open to the same criticism as the private sector. That sounds contradictory, but it is true. The Home Office has established statutory and mandatory standards. The privatisation of prisons and prison escorts was implemented alongside a tough regulatory framework set up by the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The standards of security in prisons are high, despite bad publicity, and outside the scope of regulation. The Guard Dogs Act 1975 provided powers, some of which have not been implemented. The Home Office employs in-house and contract security guards, and the in-house sector is certainly regulated.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has extensive statutory responsibilities for regulating security in respect of transport. The transport security division—Transec—is responsible for monitoring and enforcing regulations. Its role is to deliver secure public transport systems in accordance with United Kingdom legislation and international agreements, so all those people who fall within the scope of the Department's remit, such as the guards at Heathrow or Gatwick, are clearly subject to strict control and regulation. When I made a close study of Ministry of Defence security, I discovered that its police and guard service employ a variety of private security companies, so it, too, applies strong regulatory standards.
The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for much activity within the public and private sectors. Guidelines on leisure and entertainment are produced by Departments. They set the norms and are mandated in sports ground licences, safety certificates, occasional licences and contracts. The Department of Health, which has responsibility for a vast number of hospitals and other institutions, has laid down clear standards for the hiring of private security staff.
We should consider the role of central Government as a whole. Although I have not tabled parliamentary questions since the 1994–95 Session, it is possible to make a rough calculation based on the figures that were given for those years. I asked how much Departments had spent on security agencies, contract guards, in-house guards, private investigators, in-house investigators, security consultants and the purchase of security equipment. In 1994–95, the total cost of Departments' spending on private security and security agencies was more than £337 million.
Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Home Office plays an enormous role in funding closed circuit television and neighbourhood or community wardens—four such schemes have been funded in my area. It takes 20 days to train a community warden, and that training is infinitely superior to that carried out by almost any private security company. Organisations in central Government—such as the DETR. those in Northern Ireland, and nuclear and defence establishments—employ private security personnel according to different standards.
However, a variety of voluntary standards have been influenced by the Government. For example, the British Standards Institution, Securicor, the Security Industry Training Authority and the International Institution of Security all have different regulatory standards that apply to personnel and to equipment. Hovering in the background—too often, it comes into the foreground—is the better regulation taskforce and it, along with the other organisations, has an influence on security issues.
My new clause is designed to give the Home Office and the regulatory authorities food for thought. I wish to make it clear that they deal with just one part of the private security industry. Other Departments have regulatory authority, and other standards—albeit voluntary—apply particularly to security equipment. I suggest to the regulatory authorities that there should be a committee or some form of grand summit—that may sound rather pompous—that involves the Home Office, regulatory authorities, local government associations and other Departments. The aim should not be to standardise procedures, because that is not possible. However, we should at least try to make the different sectors of the security industry—contract, in-house and those within and without the scope of regulation—aware of what the others are doing through a regular exchange of information.
If my hon. Friend the Minister shocks us all by accepting the new clause, I hope that the Home Office and other Departments will give serious consideration to the practices of a whole range of bodies, many of which I have not mentioned. Although harmonisation is not feasible, we should at least ensure that the guards employed directly by the Home Office or the Foreign Office are subject to similar standards. Consultation is important, and much of the industry will fall outside the regulations. Therefore, the influence of the public sector is important in ensuring that the different organisations meet each other with the aim of achieving a greater degree of commonality than has hitherto existed.
I do not know whether I have spoken for more than 10 minutes, and apologise if I have. None the less, I have pleasure in moving the new clause.

Mr. Bercow: I am not certain whether the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) has got it right in new clause 5. I have not reached a conclusion on that point, but it is important for right hon. and hon. Members to understand the gravamen of his concern which, I believe, he highlighted on Second Reading initially, and certainly in the enjoyable and stimulating debates that we had in Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman is concerned that, either by an error of commission or—more likely, I suspect, if we follow what might be described as the cock-up theory—by error of omission, the Government may not provide a consistent regulatory framework. The principle of consistency and commonality has run through his contributions on that point. Whether one is an advocate of big or, to put it another way, heavy regulation of the private security industry or, by contrast, an advocate of small regulation or what might be called the light-touch approach, one can nevertheless form an alliance, which may even be an unholy alliance, in support of a consistent approach.
I do not mind conceding to the House that I am a little worried by the reference in the right hon. Gentleman's new clause to "a regulation harmonisation committee", not because I suspect his motives but because I am suspicious of committees. That is the reality of the matter; I am a little alarmed about a new committee emerging. Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's best endeavours to ensure the contrary, a committee under the tutelage of the Minister would be pregnant with peril. My anxiety on that point is not intense, because I do not expect the Minister to chair any committee in the near future in a ministerial capacity, but there is an inherent tendency for regulation, once established, to increase.
I am sure that it will not have escaped your beady eye. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, in the debate that we had a few moments ago, I referred to the potential for read-across between the new clauses and other pieces of legislation that the House has digested on previous occasions. To explain my point about regulation, I should like to pray in aid the wise words of my noble Friend Lord Biffen who, over many years, has uttered many wise words on many subjects.
When I was taking my A-levels in 1981, I well recall that the then Chief Secretary and right hon. Member for Oswestry—as John Biffen then was—lamented publicly the difficulty of controlling public expenditure and said:
You have to run very fast to stand still.
There is an analogy with regulation: to keep regulation at a reasonable level at which it is effective, but not burdensome, discipline; and fixity of purpose are required. I—and, I very much hope, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South—do not want a committee to have the ambition to increase regulation exponentially. If the committee had a tightly defined remit—I would be more confident if its remit were drafted by the right hon. Member for Walsall South than by the Minister of State—which was confined to consistency between one sector of the private security industry and another, that might augur well and my initial scepticism about the committee might be reconsidered. However, we do not know—although I imagine that we shall shortly discover—whether the Minister of State has any enthusiasm for the right hon. Gentleman's proposed harmonisation committee.
We need to touch briefly on a number of issues because they are conceptually different from each other and should be treated separately. The first is the form of the regulation—I was tempted to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman on this, but I was enjoying his speech so much that I decided not to—and the procedures that govern the regulation of one sector of the private security industry and another. I was anxious to discover whether the kernel of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was a worry about inconsistent practice and procedure between one sector and another, and that some sectors of the industry would be more rigorously scrutinised and held to account than others.
A separate, but no less significant, issue is whether there would be more exacting training requirements in one sector than in another. There is a stronger argument for absolute consistency in relation to the issue about form than there is in relation to standards of training or qualification. The reason is obvious. Whether we are regulating the work of man guards—or, for the edification of the politically correct classes, perhaps I should say


person guards—or are concerned with those who are engaged, through their private security work, in intelligence gathering, the principle that there should be clear procedures before deciding whether someone is bona fide, and legitimate and should be granted a licence should, presumably, be the same. The procedures need to be rigorous, whether we are talking about licensing person guards, their supervisors or those engaged in the important business of gathering intelligence.
I hope that the Minister will accept that things are different when it comes to training requirements. In short, the jobs are very different. The nature and, arguably, the level of skills required for the performance of one function relative to those required for the performance of another are substantially different. I do not believe that the training systems can be the same because the training will be different, and of a different duration. It may be provided by people who on the strength of their experience are expert in one aspect of the private security industry, but not in another. However, there is the principle—I may have been overly pedantic, as this is probably what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind—that there should be a system of training requirement, and that it should not be voluntary. It should be obligatory and apply to everyone who wants to enter the sector or to stay in it.
If someone working in the private security industry in its unregulated form is an effective operative but has no formal qualification, that individual might be offended by any suggestion that he or she is not suitable to perform the duties that he or she is performing under contract. Nevertheless, that individual is not performing the job on the strength of any professional or other qualification, for the simple reason that he or she has never been required to obtain such a qualification. Presumably, whether or not the Bill is amended, it will be obligatory for existing operatives to acquire the qualifications that we are about to insist that new entrants should acquire. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister of State on that point.
Such an approach might be burdensome for people who already work in the industry, but it would be consistent with the letter and spirit of the new clause and would at least prevent the existence of two categories of citizen. It would ensure not only what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) is inclined to call equality of esteem, but equality of treatment. We would be making it clear that everybody who works in the sector must measure up to the standards. It may be an entirely prosaic matter for a very experienced operative briefly to take the relevant course and examinations, to acquire the certificate and to wear the tee-shirt to say that he or she has done so. Nevertheless, the certainty that existing operatives have acquired the qualifications that their new counterparts will be obliged to gain as a precondition of service is likely to he central to the achievement and retention of confidence in the newly regulated industry.
I have not the slightest idea what the Minister will say about the matter. I have expressed my natural apprehension about regulation and regulation harmonisation, and my even greater apprehension about a regulation harmonisation committee. The proposal seems a slightly suspect specimen, although I am ready to admit that it is much less suspect in the tender and competent hands of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South than it would be in

the hands of almost any other hon. Member. In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, it should be said that the purpose that he has in mind is absolutely sound. The issue is this: does the Minister agree with that purpose and, if he does, does he think that the new clause is necessary? If the answer is yes to the first question, but no to the second, perhaps he would care to explain what I think he would describe in his inimitable terms as his preferred third way.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I was glad that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred to the definition provided by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) of equality of esteem. I am certain that, after the general election, there will be a debate on that subject in the Conservative party, between the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—the current Leader of the Opposition—and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), as they appeal for the ideological support of various bits of their party. I think that the hon. Member for Buckingham is on the fence with regard to those various attractive propositions.

Mr. Andrew Miller: He will go with the wind.

Mr. Clarke: I doubt it. The hon. Gentleman is a rather oleaginous man, and oleaginous people do not go with the wind.
On the central point of the new clause, I can answer the hon. Member for Buckingham positively. I recognise its aspiration and I welcome it with enthusiasm. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) is right to raise the matter with which it deals. As a minor aside, he should acknowledge that one of the ambitions of the better regulation taskforce, which has its pluses and minuses in his lexicon, is to achieve a more harmonised regulatory regime, with a view to lifting burdens from small business in particular. That is important where inappropriate regulation as a result of years of legislation introduced by Governments of all parties has imposed burdens that might be inappropriate for particular firms, industries and so on. Harmonisation—perhaps "simplification" is an even better word—is an important and worthy aspiration for the Government and I can enthusiastically endorse that aspect of my right hon. Friend's approach.
However, the new clause falls into the category of the quarter loaf that I described earlier. There is no fundamental difference of approach between my right hon. Friend and me, but we must consider how to deal with the matter in the context of the Bill. The Security Industry Authority is being established as the central and authoritative regulatory body for the industry and will be given a number of specific and important remits to discharge. To respond to the specific point that the hon. Member for Buckingham made, every organisation that the authority regulates will be obliged to adhere to its standards. That is the right way in which to proceed. To carry out its remit effectively, the authority will need fully to consult all interested parties throughout the industry while preserving its authority and independence. That is axiomatic to our thinking.
5 pm
The industry will be one of the prime sources of intelligence for the authority. However, there are also several other stakeholders to whom it will listen. They include the police, local authorities, customers, employees of the industry, and other public bodies and Departments.

Mr. Bercow: The Minister has reassured me that the Bill will require all existing and new operatives to be suitably qualified, and I am grateful for that. Nevertheless, he also said that he wanted to minimise burdens on business when possible. In the spirit of marrying those twin, equally important objectives, perhaps we should provide an opportunity for existing operatives to acquire the relevant qualifications by short-circuited means. It is possible to take a crash course—it is an unfortunate term in relation to driving—of lessons to qualify to drive. Would the Minister therefore admit of the possibility that existing operatives could acquire the standard and gain the qualification through an intensive course over a shorter period, rather than a more leisurely course over a longer period?

Mr. Clarke: I admit of the possibility, but I do not envisage things being as the hon. Gentleman describes them. As everyone involved in change management knows, managing change from the status quo to the required desirable state is one of the most difficult tasks. It is difficult for any organisation, including a regulatory organisation, such as the SIA when it is established, to achieve. I cannot predict specific paths or educational courses for the change from the status quo to the future, regulated state.
However, when the authority determines its regime for facilitating the change, it is right for it to take account of the fact that many people who currently work in the industry have not had the opportunity to gain the qualifications to which the hon. Gentleman refers. An overnight transformation in such circumstances would therefore be ridiculous. Such matters are all part and parcel of the art of making the change, which the new authority must tackle. That is one reason for the importance of conducting wide consultation. The board that we have discussed will comprise a range of interests that will enable the authority to operate sensitively.
Paragraph 8 of schedule 1 allows the authority to establish specialist advisory committees to help it in its work. That is another important means of establishing a regime. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South knows, we have taken the consistent view that we should not specify at this stage that committee X is right and committee Y is wrong, or that it is right to establish committees A, B, C, but wrong to set up committees D, E and F. That must be a matter for the authority. That is the only reason for urging my right hon. Friend to withdraw the motion.
New clause 5 would require the establishment of a specific committee. Clause 1(2)(e) places a general duty on the authority
to set or approve standards of conduct, training and levels of supervision".
We believe that it is better to focus on outcome rather than to prescribe in detail the precise bureaucratic structure—I do not use "bureaucratic" pejoratively—for achieving those ends.
I am enthusiastic about a properly harmonised regulatory regime. I believe that we should move towards universality in the way my right hon. Friend suggests. However, I do not believe that it is right to prescribe in the Bill the precise regime for achieving that. We should allow the authority to determine that, in consultation with all the relevant parties. On that basis, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider withdrawing the motion.

Mr. Bruce George: I realise that I should have contacted the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) earlier, because his knowledge of the English language is clearly infinitely superior to mine. The words "liaison committee", which I used in an earlier amendment, might have been better for this purpose. Perhaps I should have stuck to that choice, rather than using the word "harmonisation", which has connotations in relation to Europe and the dislike of anything associated with it.
The new clause is not an attempt to create homogeneity inside and outside the areas to be regulated. I merely wished to make it obvious that the world of private security is infinitely more diverse and complicated than the Bill suggests. I wanted to introduce food for thought and raise awareness in the SIA, which I hope will be enlarged, that it does not encompass the totality of the private security industry.
Because we are part of the European Union, and because existing EU directives and other forms of instructions apply to this country as well as to other member states, there will have to be a degree of harmonisation—as there is already—between the standards in our security industry and standards elsewhere, not necessarily in terms of the Bill, but in terms of training standards, for example. I gave a number of examples of that earlier. The security industry that is to be regulated in this country is therefore part of a larger jigsaw.
I have jotted down the areas covered by private security and by security and community safety in local authorities, in relation to the arrangements pertaining before and after the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In Walsall, for example, we have market security for the mediaeval market; an art gallery that might be subject to the legislation; and significant benefit fraud investigations, as does every local authority. Our trading standards department operates according to many of the standards of policing and of private security. It investigates crime and counterfeiting, exactly as the private security industry can do, and its staff has the power to kick down doors, which is more than the police or, certainly, the private security industry have. Because of the way in which that department operates, therefore, it is partly private security and partly police.
Local authorities such as Walsall have education security and housing security. We also have architectural liaison officers, because the Home Office has inculcated a set of attitudes relating to security by design. Most local authorities have community safety departments—Walsall certainly does—and risk assessment units linked to insurance, which advise the local authority on how to minimise risk. That can involve building fences and installing alarms, which, in a way, pertain to some of the responsibilities of the private security industry.
I presume that every local authority has parks—with what used to be called parkies when I was a kid and what might be now called park rangers—and facilities


management services. They have a whole list of facilities that might pertain to private security. I had a long list from the Minister of the projects funded by his Department on risk reduction in community protection, of the vast amounts of funds going into drugs awareness and of what is being done to reduce drug dependency. I hope to have a parliamentary answer shortly to my question about the money provided by other Departments for regeneration. That package contains elements relating to security, including private security.
Focusing on one local authority, Walsall borough council—albeit relatively briefly—reveals a bundle of functions within an authority's competence that are somewhere between policing and private security, both before and after the Crime and Disorder Act. I wanted to broaden the horizons of the regulatory authority, and make it realise that there was a world of security outside its scope. I did not wish to lay down communal standards: investigation of art thefts is clearly different from investigation of benefit fraud.
Standards cannot be uniform, but it is to be hoped that if different organisations are aware of the nature of private security—and of Government security that looks like private security—best practice will be disseminated from one sector to the other without the imposition of rigid standards. Perhaps reading the record of our debate will at least encourage the regulatory authority to commission research, and give it some ideas about how to operate. Even if no amendments are accepted, we shall have stimulated discussion. I hope that much of what has been said will percolate into the new authority, whose conduct and operations I shall observe with enormous interest.
Having received some assurances from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

CONDUCT PROHIBITED WITHOUT A LICENCE

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 5l, at end insert—
'(3A) Before making an order under subsection (3) which designates any of the activities specified it paragraph 5 of Schedule 2, which relate to the security of information which is held in electronic form, the Secretary of State sha11 lay a certificate before each House of Parliament stating that in his opinion the order complies with the provisions of European Directive 2000/31/EC (on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market).'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in schedule 2, page 28, line 17, at end insert—
'(5) This paragraph does not apply to the giving of advice in relation to the security of information which is held in electronic form.'.

Mr. Hawkins: Amendment No. 3 would require the Secretary of State, when introducing regulation of the information technology security sector, to state specifically that doing so does not conflict with the European directive on e-commerce. The issue, which we raised more than once in Commitee, relates to many concerns expressed by the Confederation of British Industry and others about whether regulation of the IT

security industry would conflict with the directive, which is designed to ensure a level playing field for the IT industry throughout Europe.
On 26 April, in response to the concerns that we had raised, the Minister said in Committee:
I was aware of the directive in general, but not in detail, and if I have any further thoughts on its implications I will comment in the debate on schedule 2."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 26 April 2001: c.146.]
As the Minister will recall, when we came to debate schedule 2, time was extremely short, owing to the operation of the Government's programme. The Minister therefore made no further reference to the directive. We shall press him to do so today, but in the meantime yet further serious concerns have been raised.
As recently as today, I have read the views of the important and influential group that was so involved in drawing attention to the Government's defects in connection with IR35. The Professional Contractors Group—the contractors' industry body, one of whose leading members happens to be a constituent of mine—says:
We're very aware of this piece of legislation and understand that it is not intended to target IT contractors … We would he very surprised if the government attempted to bring IT contractors within the scope of this legislation. If they did we would object to it.
More significantly still, the Professional Contractors Group goes on to say:
Any government that talks about being joined-up but wants to treat a 21st century industry in the same simplistic way as its approach towards wheel-clampers and getting drunks out of bars effectively is not taking the IT industry seriously, and is making a mistake.
Mr. Caspar Bowden, director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research, said:
If the Home Office has no intention of wading into this area, why not grant an amendment?
5.15 pm
The Government are in trouble over this issue. On 26 April, when he was responding to our initial debate in Committee, the Minister mentioned the fact that, while sitting on a train, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had been badgered about the very obvious conflict between the European directive—to which the Government, in the form of the Department of Trade and Industry, have signed up—and this legislation. However, although the Government have accidentally caught the information technology industry in the Bill, they have thus far been very reluctant to acknowledge their mistake and to do something about it.
Chapter II, article 4 of the directive is very specific. It states:
Member States shall ensure that the taking up and pursuit of the activity of an information society service provider may not be made subject to prior authorisation or any other requirement having equivalent effect.
The directive specifically states that the provider "may not" be made subject to those matters, and its provisions are mandatory. Moreover, the directive—to which the Government have signed up the United Kingdom—is due to come into effect in February 2002. However, the CBI has made it clear that the Government's proposals in the Bill to require licensing of the information security industry—which is of course a key information society
service—would be directly contrary to the electronic commerce directive. Very fairly, in responding to our debate on 26 April, the Minister did not for a moment suggest that he could positively state that the provisions and the directive were not in conflict. Indeed, it had all quite clearly taken him by surprise.
A requirement, as proposed in the Bill, for members of the information security industry to obtain licences from a regulatory authority to enable them to operate clearly would constitute requiring "prior authorisation", thereby directly contravening the directive. That article of the directive is intended, among other things, to prevent member states from introducing regulation that would stem the much-needed supply of information technology professionals. The directive is therefore intended to prevent member states from doing precisely what the Government have been seeking to do—albeit perhaps initially by accident—in the Bill. As the provision is still in the Bill, we have tabled and moved our amendment to deal with that concern.
The CBI has also pointed out that, when considering the conflict between the electronic commerce directive and the legislation, consideration should be given also to article 3 of the electronic commerce directive, which aims to free up the internal market for information society services by requiring member states to avoid any measures that might
restrict the freedom to provide information society services from another Member State.
As the CBI has pointed out, regulating the information security industry in the United Kingdom would be very difficult to do without putting practitioners outside the United Kingdom at a disadvantage—which would obviously contravene article 3 of the directive.
When we raised the issue on 26 April, there was no doubt that the Home Office had not had an opportunity fully to consider the matter. However, the Minister promised that he and his officials would do so. We shall look with interest to see whether they have done so. Nevertheless, those who are commenting on our debates—particularly, as I said in Committee, the journalists on Computer Weekly—are describing the issue, as last Friday's Computer Weekly headline did, as the
Last chance to prevent licensing threat to IT consultants".

Mr. Miller: Come on.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman may disagree with the learned editors of Computer Weekly, but I think that I prefer their expert judgment to his sedentary comment.
Our amendment No. 2 would go further than amendment No. 3 by entirely excluding IT security consultants from the legislation. We say that given the botched nature of the consultation and the hurried way in which the Government have conducted all their dealings in respect of this legislation, the Minister and his officials should ask themselves whether the IT security sector should be included in the Bill at this stage. If the Minister wants to include it after the Bill is enacted, he can always do so by way of amending schedule 2 through a regulation taken under the affirmative resolution procedure, which would ensure that there was proper parliamentary

scrutiny. We expect to hear some very firm answers from the Minister today. The IT security consultants will look very carefully at the Government's response.
The sector is one of our success stories. I know that from my experience prior to entering the House in 1992 and from the growth in IT security since then. I used to deal with those involved in IT security in financial services and banking and I know that it has been a UK success story. Our IT security consultants are regarded as among the most skilful and best in the world. We do not want the Government to damage their future opportunities, particularly through carelessness and inadvertence. If the Minister gets this wrong, he will be under huge pressure. The Government have already given themselves one self-inflicted wound over 1R35 and destroyed a great deal of their credibility with consultants in the IT field. Labour Members know that perfectly well. The Government have, suffered huge embarrassment over IR35 and it is no doubt one reason why they will lose the general election. However, I hope that even at this eleventh hour the Minister will concede that our amendments Nos. 3 or 2 would improve the matter dramatically and we look forward to hearing whether the hon. Gentleman will at long last see sense on this very important matter.

Mr. Miller: I want briefly to respond to a couple of points that were made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath—via Blackpool—(Mr. Hawkins). This afternoon we have already identified the fact that definitions are rather difficult. Indeed, we have discussed whether or not the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is oleaginous, but I will not get drawn down that route. I tried to make this point right at the end of our proceedings in Committee, at column 229 on 1 May, but unfortunately owing to the timetable of our proceedings I was cut short in my prime. Let me try again for the benefit of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath.
It is not that there is no problem. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to identify the problem, but he failed to point out the fact that the Minister has offered a solution. The hon. Gentleman needs to respond to Caspar Bowden, Computer Weekly, the Confederation of British Industry and others, is I have responded to people who have contacted me, that the solution lies in secondary legislation.
Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman why his amendment fails badly and would severely damage the Bill. Let me say, in the spirit of the way in which the Committee was conducted, that there is broad cross-party agreement on the principles behind the Bill, but amendment No.2 includes the phrase "held in electronic form". That must refer both to the intellectual property that is digitalised and held in electronic form and to the physical medium. It is impossible to separate the two. The amendment must therefore refer to both.
If the amendment were accepted, it would be impossible to distinguish between companies that should be regulated and companies that need not fall within the scope of the Bill. Indeed, it could possibly mean that provision of security to a firm with a computer—and that would cover an awful lot of firms—would not require a licence under the Bill. Clearly, that is not the intention and I accept that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is not trying to wreck the Bill, but the logic of his position is flawed.
It is right to draw attention to the problem, but the solution is obvious and was presented to the Standing Committee. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will restate that solution when he responds to the debate, and thereby put at rest the minds of the many people in the computer industry with whom I have close contact. It is wrong to try to instil fear in an important sector of the industry with a scare story such as this.
I urge the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw the amendment, which could damage the spirit of the Bill. Debate should turn to the extremely difficult question of defining, in the context of this Bill and of future legislation, the difference between the medium in which data are held and the information itself. That matter will crop up in many debates in the next Parliament. However, I am sure that the Opposition by that time will have a new leader, and that the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will be supporting a new tone of Toryism.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for not being here for his opening remarks, although I did manage to hear them. The announcement of the dissolution of Parliament meant that I was trying to organise Home Office business with the Government and the two Houses of Parliament.
I shall be brief. I agree that we must uphold and develop Britain's e-commerce industry and information technology sector. We must not frighten people in the sector, or allow unfair regulations and controls to drive the industry out of the country at a time when it is doing well. We must be careful that we do not legislate in part and in haste, and repent much more fully and at leisure.
Liberal Democrat Members share the Government's view that it would be wrong for the Bill to sweep in and regulate the information technology and e-commerce sectors. Some issues cannot easily be accommodated in the context of a regulatory system, even if that is an opt-in system. Those issues arise from the legislation covering data protection and the regulation of investigatory powers, which have been dealt with in other Bills.
We need to understand the Home Office's approach to this matter, and the relevance of the interests that other Departments—such as the Department of Trade and Industry—have in it. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said earlier that we need proper harmonisation and co-ordination to avoid sending the wrong signal by legislating unwisely.
If I thought that there was a clear doubt about the subject—and if I had not been satisfied by the Minister's assurances—I would be sympathetic to the amendment. The Conservative party is perfectly right to raise the issue. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and I disagree only to this extent; I do not think that the Conservatives are unfairly raising an issue, and they are not frightening people It is perfectly proper to raise the issue and to get the position on the record. We always need a balance in this place between getting certainty in legislation on the one hand and not making legislation so long that every eventuality is covered on the other.
I understand and sympathise with the genesis of the Conservative proposals, but I am relieved to say that they are not necessary. The Bill adequately deals with the

issue. I will be keen to hear the Minister confirm, as he did in Committee, that the Government are not excluding the IT industry from their consideration and that it is on the agenda. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will make sure that there are no adverse consequences of early action?

Mr. Bercow: That is a veritable masterpiece, even by the high standards that the hon. Gentleman has set over a long period. [Interruption.] The Minister of State is chuntering from a sedentary position, to no obvious effect. It is welcome to have the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey's reassurance about the good intentions of the Conservative party in this matter, but his speech has highlighted the problem. He says that he agrees with the Government that it is not intended to regulate the IT sector-but that is precisely the point. There is an apparent disparity—in the intention and, so far, in expressed words—between the stance of the Home Office on the one hand and that of the DTI on the other. It is about that that we are arguing.

Mr. Hughes: In amendment No. 2, the Conservatives are seeking to exclude for all time from the Bill advice in relation to security and information that is held in electronic form. The Government have said that the Bill is a rolling programme; this is a framework Bill. It is not compulsory, and people can opt into it. Some of us have argued that the Bill should have been compulsory for some sectors. I also understand that sectors move quickly. The Minister will know that I have concerns about accountancy firms that were not doing security work at all but now are and which have fallen within the remit of the Bill.
The central criticism of the amendment is that it shuts the door for all time on the matter. That is not reasonable. If an appropriate agreement can be made, there is logic in having everybody who does security work included. No matter which party is in power following the 7 June election, nobody will suddenly sweep the IT industry into the regulations. We have had a perfectly proper debate about an important sector. We may not need to include this type of information in legislation. If we do, we ought to try to identify all the relevant sectors. We would then have a great list in the legislation, and that is not necessary.

Mr. Charles Clarke: In broad terms, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), because their analysis is correct. I am looking forward to fighting the general election campaign if the Leader of the Opposition chooses IR35 as the slogan behind which he hopes to unite Conservative voters throughout the country so as to sweep the Conservatives to power.
As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, it is reasonable to raise the issue addressed in the amendments. However, the case is not strengthened by arguing that it is on a par with the fixed penalty notice debate that we had on earlier legislation, and that was a trivial point made by the individual who argued the case to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Nor do I accept the adjectives that the hon. Gentleman used. The Bill is not careless, inadvertent,
botched or over-hasty, either in relation to the IT sector or more generally. The process, from consultation to White Paper to legislation, has allowed a wide contribution from wide interests to the crafting of the Bill.
Amendment No. 3 requires any order designating as licensable conduct the activities of IT security consultants to be preceded by a certificate stating that the order complies with the electronic commerce directive 2000/31/EC, which is designed to ensure the free movement of information society services between EU member states. It relates to the provision of remunerated services at a distance by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services. Services provided in the physical presence of the provider and recipient are not covered, even if they involve the use of electronic devices.
Article III of the directive, about which I was questioned, is about the cross-border provision of information society services, and article IV prohibits the taking up and pursuit of the activity of an information society service provider being made subject to prior authorisation or any other requirement having equivalent effect. Article IV does not apply, however, to prior authorisation schemes that are not specifically targeted at information society services, so it would be unlikely to affect the application of this Bill.
Nevertheless, the Home Office would clearly need to consider very carefully the implications of the directive if it intended to introduce regulation of IT security consultants under the provisions of this Bill, but—and here I take the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—as we do not intend to, we will not have to address the issue in the way suggested by amendment No. 3.
Amendment No. 2 is more substantive. We recognise that part of the information technology sector has been concerned about what application, if any, the Bill will have to it. Specifically, the sector is concerned that the Government want to regulate it under the Bill. We discussed the point in Committee at some length, and we said that the definition of "security consultant" used in schedule 2 is deliberately broad. That is because we want it to remain usable in the face of changing security systems, in particular those making use of technology. It is in that context that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston are right to say that we must draft the Bill and implement it in a way that is sensitive to how the industry may develop.
The term "security consultant" means someone advising on
the taking of security precautions in relation to any risk to property or to the person".
The licensing requirements under that definition will, as with all parts of the Bill, be brought into effect in due course by implementing regulations, and those regulations will need to specify exactly which security consultancy activities are licensable. Activities that are not specified will not be licensable.
It is our fundamental principle to ensure that the Bill is targeted at those specialist providers of security services whom we have indicated we want to regulate, and that the provisions do not inadvertently catch groups that are not

relevant to our policy aims. I tried to put the position of IT security consultants in relation to the Bill beyond doubt on Second Reading and in Committee. In the light of the remarks made in Computer Weekly, I should like the IT industry to take careful note of what I said in Committee:
I should like it to be clear to the industry and the Committee that the information security consultancy industry is not under threat of licensing at a future date under this Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 May 2001; c. 230.]
I made it clear that the Department of Trade and Industry will consult the IT industry on the extent and effectiveness of existing precautions and on whether further action is required. I look forward to seeing the results, because the Government believe that there are issues that need to bo explored in relation to confidence in the information security consultancy industry. The business has a vital role to play in protecting the new economy from vandalism and other forms of crime.
Consideration of the Bill has started a valuable debate about how information security consultants may match or exceed the levels of confidence that the Bill will create for other security contractors. The Government's position is absolutely clear and the principles that we set out, of legislating with the industry following proper consultation on an evolving basis, are encapsulated in our approach to the IT security industry.
The amendments are helpful in enabling us to elaborate and clarify an important area of concern, but I urge the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw amendment No. 3, on the basis the assurances that I have given. I urge hon. Members not to follow those in the IT security industry who have used exaggerated language about the threat that the Bill might present to the e-business world. That world has absolutely nothing to fear from it.

Mr. Hawkins: I am afraid that the Minister has not persuaded me and, far more importantly, has completely failed to persuade the experts at the Confederation of British Industry. He has repeated yet again that what he is offering is simply further consultation by his friends at the Department of Trade and Industry on the secondary legislation, but the CBI said:
Consultation on secondary legislation creates more problems, doesn't solve them. The proposal by the Home Office Minister, Charles Clarke MP, to have the DTI consult on licensing the industry does not help matters. It simply obliges the DTI to carry out a consultation in which all affected parties—the industry itself and its users—are likely to say that regulation is unnecessary. Given that there has been no demand for regulation in the first place, is this a worthwhile use of the DTI's and industry's time and resources?
The Minister said Mat we should not suggest that the industry got dragged into the Bill by inadvertence, but the CBI said:
Legislative accident, so no consultation:—The IT security industry has fallen under this legislation in an unexpected and accidental way, and this only became apparent during the Bill's passage through the House of Lords. Because of this, the IT security industry and its users had no participation in the consultation that led to the White Paper CM 4254 and the draft legislation itself.
The Minister's two arguments have been comprehensively demolished by the leading experts.

Mr. Clarke: I will not pursue all the hon. Gentleman's points. For clarification, in the event that a criminal individual or organisation sought to develop a presence in the IT security industry in order to undermine companies'


security, is he suggesting that there should be no process for looking into the people involved and no application of the general principle of the Bill?

Mr. Hawkins: We are saying that there has been no demand for such regulation and that to use a blunt instrument that is intended to deal with the admitted abuses of cowboy wheelclampers and nightclub bouncers to hit a sophisticated e-business is quite wrong.
The Government have recently been criticised for failing to take user interests into account in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hawkins: No, I have already given way to the Minister once and I am coming to an end.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who is chuntering from a sedentary position, accused the Opposition of indulging in scare stories, but I remind him and other hon. Members that the headlines are written not by us but by those experts in the industry who have considered the Committee proceedings and who have found the Minister's attempted reassurances in Committee and on Second Reading completely unconvincing. They do not think that the problem has gone away at all.
5.45 pm
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for suggesting that they think that we were right to raise this issue, but we go further; we think that we are acting on behalf of one of the United Kingdom's most important industries. The Government have inappropriately used the blunt instrument of the Bill to try to hit a successful industry that was never intended to be caught, so I am determined to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 315.

Division No. 204]
[5.46 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Curry, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Day, Stephen


Bercow, John
Duncan, Alan



Beresford, Sir Paul
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Blunt, Crispin
Evans, Nigel


Body, Sir Richard
Fabricant, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Flight, Howard


Brady, Graham
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brazier, Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Dr Liam


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fraser, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gale, Roger


Burns, Simon
Garnier, Edward


Butterfill, John
Gibb, Nick


Cash, William
Gill, Christopher


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


(Chipping Barnet)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Green, Damian


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Greenway, John


Collins, Tim
Grieve, Dominic





Gummer, Rt Hon John
Ottaway, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Paice, James


Hawkins, Nick 
Paterson, Owen


Hayes, John
Randall, John


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Horam, John
Robathan, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hunter, Andrew 
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Jenkin, Bernard
St Aubyn, Nick


Johnson Smith,
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Soames, Nicholas


Key, Robert
Spicer, Sir Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Spring, Richard


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Swayne, Desmond


Leigh, Edward
Syms, Robert


Letwin, Oliver
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lidington, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Thompson, William


Loughton, Tim
Tredinnick, David


Luff, Peter
Trend, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tyrie, Andrew


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Walter, Robert


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Whittingdale, John


MacIean, Rt Hon David
Wilkinson, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Madel, Sir David
Yeo, Tim


Maples, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Mates, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Mr. Keith Simpson and


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Mr. James Gray.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Buck, Ms Karen


Allan, Richard
Burnett, John


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


(Swansea E)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
(NE Fife)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Austin, John
Cann, Jamie


Bailey, Adrian
Casale, Roger


Ballard, Jackie
Caton, Martin


Banks, Tony
Cawsey, Ian


Barnes, Harry
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Barron, Kevin
Clapham, Michael


Battle, John
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bayley, Hugh
Clark, Dr Lynda


Begg, Miss Anne
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Tony, (Northampton S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clelland, David


Berry, Roger
Clwyd, Ann


Best, Harold
Coffey, Ms Ann


Betts, Clive
Colman, Tony


Blackman, Liz
Connarty, Michael


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cooper, Yvette


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Corbett, Robin


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Corston, Jean


Borrow, David
Cotter, Brian


Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)
Cox, Tom


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cranston, Ross


Bradshaw, Ben
Crausby, David


Brand, Dr Peter
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Breed, Colin
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Brinton, Mrs Helen



Browne, Desmond







Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Iddon, Dr Brian


(Copeland)
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jenkins, Brian


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Davidson, Ian
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


(B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Denham, Rt Hon John
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dismore, Andrew
Joyce, Eric


Dobbin, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Donohoe, Brian H
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Doran, Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dowd, Jim
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Drew, David
Kemp, Fraser


Drown, Ms Julia
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Khabra, Piara S


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kidney, David


Eagle, Maria (L' pool Garston)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Edwards, Huw
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kingham, Ms Tess


Ennis, Jeff
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Etherington, Bill
Lammy, David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Laxton, Bob


Fearn, Ronnie
Lepper, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Leslie, Christopher


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Levitt, Tom


Flint, Caroline
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Foster, Don (Bath)
Livsey, Richard


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Foulkes, George
Lock, David


Fyfe, Maria
McAvoy, Thomas


Galloway, George
McCabe, Steve


Gapes, Mike
McCafferty, Ms Chris


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gibson, Dr Ian
Macdonald, Calum


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McFall, John


Goggins, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Golding, Mrs Llin
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McNamara, Kevin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grocott, Bruce
McWilliam, John


Gunnell, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hain, Peter
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hancock, Mike
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hanson, David
Martlew, Eric


Healey, John
Maxton, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hendrick, Mark
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hepburn, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Heppell, John
Mitchell, Austin


Hill, Keith
Moffatt, Laura


Hinchliffe, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moore, Michael


Hood, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Hope, Phil
(B'ham Yardley)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mountford, Kali


Howells, Dr Kim
Mullin, Chris


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Hara, Eddie


Hurst, Alan
Olner, Bill





O'Neill, Martin
Squire, Ms Rachel


Öpik, Lembit
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Organ, Mrs Diana
Steinberg, Gerry


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stevenson, George


Perham, Ms Linda
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pickthall, Colin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pike, Peter L
Stinchcombe, Paul


Plaskitt, James
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pope, Greg
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pound, Stephen
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Prentice, Ms Bridger (Lewisham E)
Stringer, Graham


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Primarolo, Dawn
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Purchase, Ken
(Dewsbury)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Quinn, Lawrie
Temple-Morris, Peter


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick
Timms, Stephen


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Tipping, Paddy


Robertson, John
Todd, Mark


(Glasgow Anniesland)
Touhig, Don


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Trickett, Jon


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Roy, Frank
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ruddock, Joan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tyler, Paul


Ryan, Ms Joan
Tynan, Bill


Salmond, Alex
Vis, Dr Rudi


Salter, Martin
Walley, Ms Joan


Sanders, Adrian
Ward, Ms Claire


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wareing, Robert N


Savidge, Malcolm
White, Brian


Sedgemore, Brian
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sheerman, Barry
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Shipley, Ms Debra
(Swansea W)


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Woodward, Shaun


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Worthington, Tony



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Tellers for the Noes:


Southworth, Ms Helen
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Spellar, John
Mr. Ian Pearson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 12

REGISTER OF LICENCES

Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 9, line 42, at end insert—
'(3A) (a) The Authority may, at the request of any person who holds a licence, remove the particulars specified in subsection (3)(b) from any copy of the register which is available for inspection by members of the public under subsection (4) if the following condition is satisfied.
(b) The condition is that the Authority is satisfied that the availability for inspection by members of the public of particulars of the person's usual residential address creates, or (if the Authority were not to comply with the request) would be likely to create, a serious risk that he or a person who lives with him will be subjected to violence or intimidation.
(c) Nothing in this subsection shall be interpreted as allowing any person not to provide the Authority with any of the particulars required by subsection (3).'.


The amendment deals with 42an important concern, which we raised on Second Reading and in Committee, about the security of the details of people who are licensed by the new Security Industry Authority, which will be available for public inspection in the register that it maintains. We have repeatedly stressed the fact that there will be obvious difficulties for people who are engaged in sensitive security work, or who are night club bouncers or wheelclamping operatives, if they are placed at risk of grudge retaliation attacks by having their addresses made publicly available on a register that can be accessed through the internet. We recognise that disgruntled criminal elements could carry out revenge attacks.
In the Committee's final sitting on 1 May, the Minister said that a similarly worded amendment might find favour with the Government. His approach has been constructive. He recognises that, sadly, links have been proven between more disreputable night club bouncers and the trade in illegal drugs. That world is heavily populated by criminal elements. I have raised with him more than once the possibility of attacks on people's homes if they are trading from their home address and it is published on the register. It is not hard to envisage the consequences of such an unpleasant attack, in which petrol is poured through someone's letterbox and set alight. We see that all too frequently in our towns and inner cities. In many of those tragic cases of criminal arson, people in the house have no connection with the subject of the grudge attack, and young children have been burned to death. That has always worried us, and I am glad chat the Minister has been sympathetic to the issues that we have raised.
We drafted the amendment along the same lines as the measure that the Government included in the recent Criminal Justice and Police Bill on the security of company directors' addresses. It would set the same test, whereby the authority should be satisfied that there is a serious risk of violence or intimidation before an address is removed from the register. The issue is serious and we make no apology for returning to it. In the light of the Government's response to it in earlier debates, we hope that the Minister will take a positive approach and, perhaps even at this late stage, break the habit of a lifetime and accept an amendment from the official Opposition.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, shall be brief.
The amendment deals with an important issue and, once again, we have to consider the difficulty of balancing interests. The Bill allows people to opt into a registration system for the security industry. When they register, they become part of the database of information that allows the consumer to discover the nature of the industry, who the owner of a company is and the details of prospective licensed security people. That proposal was debated in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and there has been no disagreement that it is a good thing, but we have to consider whether people should then be able to hide themselves once they have opted in. Although we are sympathetic to the idea, I want to flag up the need for consistency in Government policy.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) was right to refer to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which is before the other place. The ability of animal rights activists to get hold of the addresses of shareholders and company employees with a view to protesting has been debated. A separate debate has taken place on whether Members of Parliament should be able to conceal their

residential address, because some have been harassed or intimidated. Those arguments raise proper democratic issues. I do not believe that Members of Parliament should be entitled to conceal their residential address because it is important that the public know where their MPs live.
I am more sympathetic to shareholders and people involved in companies that deal with animal experimentation. They do not stand for elected office and are not, in that sense, seeking to do a public job. The caveat is that we need two assurances before they, or people involved in the security industry, are able to conceal their addresses. First, a proper process must be in place to establish whether it is justified to keep them out of the public domain. Secondly, we need to protect people against the fiction of the corporate state. The reality is that to pursue the details of a registered company, it is necessary to go first to the register at Companies House to get its address. However, that might be only a post office box number, which simply receives post, or the head office of a set of companies, from which the company in question might not operate. Technically, the address is a link, but it might be a distraction because it does not get us any closer to the action.
I shall be interested to discover where the Minister's sympathies lie. First, should the address be concealed only in exceptional circumstances, after proper authority has been applied, and when it can be challenged? Secondly, would there be protection against a fictitious or meaningless address being displayed? We are worried that people who opt into the registration system might try to opt out of giving their personal details so that the consumer, who might have a complaint about or an interest in the registration, is unable to track them down and obtain the necessary information.
As a postscript, I want to refer to something that was raised in Committee. I do not know how many Charles Clarkes there are in England or how many Nick Hawkinses there are in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I think that the Minister might have been to a certain football ground in Norwich recently. I heard him utter an almost descanted, "There's only one Charles Clarke." I hope that I am allowed 10 seconds of self-indulgence to tell the House that I was on Millwall's terraces on Saturday when it won its last home game of the season 5-0 and took the second division championship. We made a similar chant, although in our case it was a collective "There's only one Millwall football club." That is certainly true, which some people have said is a good thing.
My serious point is that there are many people with the same name. For example, a much more famous Simon Hughes is a very good cricketer, and I was honoured to speak at his benefit. If the residential address is removed, it may be difficult to track down the person who is registered as a licensed private security operative. Nothing will identify the one Charles Clarke, Nick Hawkins or John Bercow from the tens or hundreds of people who share the same name. We need a sensitive response, and I am not sure that removing the address from the register will solve all the problems.

Mr. Charles Clarke: First, may I congratulate Millwall on its promotion to the first division? I assure the team of a very warm welcome when they come to Carrow road. Incidentally, there are more Clarkes in this


Parliament than any other name. We are divided only by the presence or absence of the letter "e". The superior clan, such as me, have an "e" and the less distinguished members of the family do not. [Interruption.] The surname of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has an "e" and he is a very distinguished Member of the House. We can only commiserate with those who do not have an "e" and regret their carelessness in losing it or their absent-mindedness in not having one in the first place.
It is not entirely fair of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) to chide me for not accepting amendments tabled by the official Opposition. I do not accept every amendment that they table, but I have a reasonable record in accepting their amendments to several Bills that have been considered this Session.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister confirm that the factual record will demonstrate—not least in relation to the passage of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001—that, although he did not accept any amendments from the official Opposition. by way of a face-saving alternative he accepted the gravamen of the amendments and introduced new clauses of his own at a later stage?

Mr. Clarke: When we discussed the issues in Committee, I genuinely tried to do that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and I shall ask my friend Mr. Mark Seddon—the hon. Gentleman's opponent at the general election—to pay the appropriate tribute to him when the opportunity arises. I have also accepted Opposition amendments straight off with whatever loss of face that may result for me. That is the right way for the House to consider such issues.
The issue is serious and was discussed fully on Second Reading and in Committee. However, the best debate that I have attended on the subject took place in the Committee on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill when we discussed animal rights activists. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath for the way in which he moved the amendment. There is common ground in the House on the need to deal with these issues properly.
As I explained in Committee, the wording of clause 12(3)(b) makes it clear that the address to be published in the register is that
which satisfies the prescribed requirements".
In prescribing the requirements for addresses that are entered in the register, the Secretary of State can take account of the personal safety concerns that lie behind the amendment.
Our intention is that the regulations will require that, in the vast majority of cases, the address entered in the register should be the business address of the firm employing the security operative, or from which the operative works. Some security operatives work from home, so it may be necessary to require the home address to be included in the register, but—as we have said before—we are open to alternative suggestions. The important thing is for the licence holder to be identifiable and to be traceable by the authority.
6.15 pm
Clause 12(1) requires the authority to establish and maintain a register containing the details laid down in subsection (3). Clearly the authority must itself have full details of those it has approved for licences, but that does not mean that the authority must publish that register in full. Indeed, subsection (41 makes it the duty of the authority to ensure that such arrangements are in force as it considers appropriate for members of the public and others to inspect the contents of the register. It will thus be open to the authority to establish a means for individual licence applicants to make a case for limiting the personal information appearing on the publicly available register, and for a suitable mechanism to be established for that purpose.
The general usefulness of the register to the user of security services will depend on its ease of access and the reliability of its contents. The balance is an issue that the authority will have to consider carefully. The key point that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath must consider is whether it is necessary for the authority to consider the appropriateness of publishing information on individuals or more generally. Although it is important for the Secretary of State to take account of personal safety concerns in prescribing requirements, the evidence factor must be a consideration. In the case of the animal rights issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred, there is clear evidence of such organisations' preparedness to attack people in their homes. Evidence is clearly a factor.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for the serious way in which he has considered these matters. As he said, there is same common ground between the parties, but is he prepared to go a little further? In any discussions that he might have with his officials over the next few days, which might lead to the Home Office advising the authority when it is set up, will he specifically draw attention to the fact that he will urge the authority to exercise flexibility when people work from home? It would be vary helpful if he could say that.

Mr. Clarke: I am happy to give that important assurance. Two factors are important. First, the Secretary of State can take account of personal safety when he or she specifies the requirements for addresses and, secondly, the authority must decide whether it considers it appropriate to publish the register in full. In both circumstances, evidence—specific or generic—must be taken into account.
I can give the hon. Gentleman the specific assurance that he seeks. I will make sure that the issue is drawn to the attention not only of my officials but of any future Government—whether of his persuasion or mine—after the general election. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Hawkins: As I had hoped, the Minister has been helpful. In the light of what he said about the advice that he is prepared to give and the fact that the authority will examine all our debates on Second Reading, in Committee and tonight, it would not be helpful to press the amendment to a Division. We have ventilated the concerns that are widely shared by all three major parties and this has been a useful debate.
We remain concerned that there will be cases in which the authority feels that it needs to give someone who is in the security sector and who works from home a dispensation so that his home address is not published in a register—either one that is open to physical inspection or one that appears on the internet—so that that person, his family or anyone who stays with him is not in danger from a grudge or revenge attack. The Minister placed much stress on the need for there to be evidence of a threat, but sometimes there is no warning of a revenge or grudge attack, which creates a difficulty.
We recognise that the Minister has been helpful and has said that the authority will consider carefully the use of its powers. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19

POWERS OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 15, line 18, at end insert—
'(3A) A person exercising the power conferred by subsection (1) shall do so reasonably only in the course of his duty and only as part of a series of routine checks or as a result of reasonable suspicion of breach of regulations or commission of an offence under any provision of this Act.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 9, in clause 20, page 16, line 23, at end insert—
'(4) No document shall be published under subsection (1) or (2) unless a draft of the document has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Hughes: The amendments are straightforward. They relate to clauses 19 and 20 which are among the four clauses that deal with entry, inspection and information. For various reasons, these matters were not debated at any length in Committee.
Once a regulatory authority for the security industry has been set up under the Bill and people and concerns are regulated, clauses 19 and 20 give power for the authority to go in, inspect and regulate. One cannot argue with that; a regulatory authority has to go in and see what is going on. The amendments seek to make sure that that is not done with oppression or harassment. To step back for a second, there is a difference between the way we regulate activity subject to a licensed regime and the way we regulate normal daily activity that does not need licensing.
Motoring is an obvious example: if people apply for and obtain a driving licence, they do not have to drive a car—that is optional. However, if they do, by definition they subject themselves to a regime involving both inspection of the vehicle that they drive and related controls. People do not have to run a pub, but if they apply to run one, they know that there are certain rules and conditions when the magistrates grant a licence. That is different from the way in which we should be regulated as we walk down the street or live in our homes. I am against the idea that people should be able to climb up drainpipes, climb through windows and stop someone for no good purpose, claiming that they are just carrying out a spot check to see if he is behaving himself. That applies even to controversial things; without reasonable

suspicion, the police and other authorities should not be able to stop people going about their lawful business just because they think that someone might be carrying a stolen item, a little cannabis or whatever. Quite rightly, criminal law states that there must be reasonable suspicion of an offence before an authority can act.
A distinction therefore has to be made when we talk about the licensing regime. People do not have to be bouncers or employ others to run a security business; they do not have to be wheelclampers or work for a wheelclamping firm. The regime is therefore an opt-in regime so, naturally and reasonably, there will be powers of entry and inspection that allow the authority to exercise its proper functions, as agreed in legislation.

Mr. Bercow: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not embarrassed about what he has just said, as he certainly does not need to be. Does he accept that his objection to the idea that police officers and other agents of public authorities should be able to go marauding around private property or commercial premises without authority or good excuse should not divide the parties in any way? The argument is between those who might genuinely be considered libertarians and those who are unthinking and arrogant authoritarians.

Mr. Hughes: I agree. I do not want to be over-distracted, but the tension between the two tendencies is interesting. Sometimes the hon. Gentleman's party expresses excessively authoritarian sentiments which, in all probability, he does not agree with; the Labour party certainly includes libertarians, but it also has people who are clearly authoritarian.
I know that the example I am about to give is not central to the Bill, but it is a parallel. Later this evening, the House of Lords will debate DNA sampling, a matter which hon. Members have already discussed. The lords will consider whether it is appropriate for the police to take samples and keep them if people are innocent of suspected crimes. Those of us with a libertarian perspective believe that it is wrong for the state to keep acquiring possessions if that cannot be justified on the grounds of an offence against the rules of the state. That is the issue.
Amendment No. 8 would impose, at an appropriate stage, a limitation to the power exercised under clause 19. The other place accepted an amendment stating that a person exercising the power of entry and inspection
shall do so only at a reasonable hour.
I am conscious of the fact that we are at the end of the parliamentary Session, but we are seeking to persuade the House to add to clause 19 a statement that a person exercising such power
shall do so reasonably only in the course of his duty and only as part of a series of routine checks or as a result of reasonable suspicion of breach of regulations or commission of an offence".
We are obviously trying to guard against someone in the regulatory authority calling on a certain person, company or club every Thursday simply because they have decided to do so. It is reasonable to have routine inspections, a bit like those for schools, and the odd spot check, and it is certainly reasonable for the authority to go in if it is tipped off that something funny is going on, but we must have protection against oppression.
When the Minister responds. 1 should be grateful—if the amendment is not accepted—for an explanation of what protection the legislation provides against the abuse
of power. He may deal with the drafting of clause 20, to which we tabled amendment No. 9. Clause 20 recognises that the power of entry is controversial and states that the authority shall have a duty
to prepare and publish a document containing its guidance
on how people should go about discharging their right to enter and inspect premises.
In Committee, we had a long debate about the different things that the authority will do. The Bill makes provision for guidance, and the Government may introduce secondary legislation. We are pleased that there will be management of the power of the authority by a guidance document but, because rights of entry and inspection are civil liberty issues, it is important that that document should come before Parliament for approval. Amendment No. 9 requires that the guidance document will not be published unless both Houses of Parliament have seen and approved a draft. Colleagues will know that that is a common procedure when Parliament deals with sensitive matters: we allow someone else to do the work, but want to sign off the document as appropriate, having ensured that we will protect the liberties of our citizens. I hope that the amendments appeal to the House in their detail, but certainly in their spirit; I commend them to the House.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has tabled a sensible set of amendments; he will be aware of the significance of our exchanges on the subject in Committee.
I am always a generous-spirited fellow, as you will readily testify, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Far be it from me to accuse the hon. Gentleman of plagiarism; he would not be guilty of any such thing because he has an original and penetrating mind. However, he would be prepared to concede that there is a commonality of spirit between his party and ours on the subject. Because of his recollection of our deliberations in Committee, he will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) argued that the power of entry and inspection should not be exercised by an officer unless he reasonably suspects a breach of the regulations or the commission of an offence under the Act.
To his credit, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has followed my hon. Friend's train of thought on that occasion, as well as before and since, in deploying the formulation "reasonable suspicion" in amendment No. 8. He makes an eminently sensible point. Nobody disputes that there should be powers of entry and inspection; the argument is about the means by which they are exercised. The hon. Gentleman chose to focus on an important point about the nature of the exercise of the power. As he put it, his concern is that, unless the power is reasonably circumscribed, not least by the use of the word "reasonable" or by a reference to ordinary hours of the day, an overly zealous officer, probably in the minority but nevertheless burdensome for the person suffering from the exercise of the power, may choose willy-nilly, almost at random and without obvious good cause or excuse, to rampage through—I accept that that is an evaluative and strong-minded term—the property of the person who, however unreasonably and without evidence, he suspects of a breach of the regulations or the commission of an offence.
6.30 pm
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has a point—there is a danger that inspections will otherwise take place without justification. There is also a possibility, again highlighted by the hon. Gentleman, that an overly zealous officer might choose to make regular inspections at the same time on what might be regarded as such a repetitive basis that it becomes intimidating.
There are other possibilities. Far from choosing to visit at the same time for a series of weeks in succession in such a manner as to appear intimidatory, an officer might choose to visit the same property, premises or sets of premises held by a company on various days and at various times but without obvious authority or good cause. That would be equally intimidatory.
In fairness, the Government have said that there must be an element of unpredictability. If people know in advance that they are to be visited or that they can expect to be visited at exactly the same time, they are likely, particularly if they are in breach of the legislation, adequately to prepare themselves to ensure that they are not caught out. The Minister has said that on a number of occasions, and he has a fair point. However, I understand that there is to be an obligation under clause 19, in its unamended form, for the person who is conducting the inspection to be authorised in writing. If so, I assume, for the purposes of the argument and our assessment of the merits or otherwise of the clause, that that will mean not only authority in writing to make the inspection but notification in writing of the intended date and time. If I have misread the clause on that significant point, I should be happy to be corrected by the Minister and thereby reassured.
The Minister, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will have noticed, has looked eagerly in the direction of those whom I cannot name or refer to by title, but whose responsibility it is to provide the Minister with advice. They are what might be described as the nameless and faceless ones, but they sit not far from the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Even obliquely, the hon. Gentleman should not pursue that.

Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not proposing to dilate upon the point; I thought that I might get away with the occasional animadversion to them, but you have told me, with your formidable shake of the head, that I cannot, and therefore I will not try. Nevertheless, it would be helpful to have some guidance on the point I raised. [Interruption.] Does the Minister want to intervene? No, he was merely chuntering from a sedentary position—beneficially, I am sure, as far as our exchanges are concerned.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has highlighted a significant possibility, and there are others. Inspections could take place at awkward times, possibly in an over-zealous way, and in a manner that would be calculated to intimidate or would in practice do so. The hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and I share a basic unease about the exercise of entry and inspection powers, which leads us not to dispute the need for them but to try and build in the maximum protection for those who are to be subject


to them. 1 make no bones about it—some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may think that I am a wet liberal on these matters—

Jackie Ballard: Oh no

Mr. Bercow: I am greatly reassured by the hon. Lady's remark, made from a sedentary position. However, I am concerned that people should be properly protected. I am always anxious about the overweening power of the state to busybody and interfere, to harass people and subject them to impertinent inquiry without good cause. In short, this is an issue of civil liberties. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is a champion of civil liberties, but so are my right hon. and hon. Friends and me.
I should like to put a slightly different point on the amendments to the Minister. It is a new point in the consideration of the Bill but it is not new in the exchanges that the Minister and I have had. I have a feeling that, with his remarkable perspicacity, the Minister will have anticipated this point, which is culled from the experience that we shared in the Committee 'cage of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman and I simply disagreed about this point, and we may do so again. It is this: it seems to me that under the terms of the unamended clause 19, people who are or who appear to be—I will come back to the point about appearing to be—regulated individuals under the terns of the Bill will be entitled to greater protection under its terms than people who are not registered or who do not appear to be registered.
As not everybody is familiar with this argument and as I do not want an entirely self-contained and, to everyone else, unintelligible argument with the Minister, it is worth explaining what I have in mind. Clause 19(1) provides that someone who is authorised to enter and inspect the premises of any person who appears to be a regulated person can do so if he or she has authorisation in writing. However, it specifically refers to an entitlement to enter and inspect the premises of someone who appears to be a regulated person. What about those who do not appear to be regulated persons or to have a licence to operate but who are suspected of a breach of the regulations under the legislation or the commission of an offence? Those who are not thought to be regulated—and, to put it more accurately are thought not to be regulated under the legislation but who are thought to be practising, illegally or as cowboys, and to be committing offences—should surely be subject to the not insignificant powers of entry and inspection that clause 19 is intended to confer upon officers. I am not sure what the answer is.
The Minister is a sometimes sagacious fellow but almost invariably a resourceful one I feel sure that he will have some sort of answer and that it probably will have been provided for him in advance of our debate. I will be fascinated to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about those who do not appear to be regulated—indeed, who appear not to be regulated—but who do not seem to be subject to the substantial power of clause 19(1).

Mr. Simon Hughes: I follow that point but I am not certain that everyone listening will follow the regulated and non-regulated alternatives proposed by the hon. Gentleman. Is not the logic of the conundrum or dilemma to which the hon. Gentleman refers that it is far better that

there is one regime and that everybody should be regulated? Otherwise, there is a two-tier system. Policing those who have opted for regulation means that when someone knocks at a door and the defence is, "Sorry, mate, I am not regulated", nothing can be done about it. That cannot be in the consumers' interest.

Mr. Bercow: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that everybody who has characteristics in common in terms of job description and the functions they fulfil should be subject to equal treatment. That is a longer but, I hope, accurate way of saying that we should treat like with like. Obviously, we should not treat in exactly the same way people who are in very different categories and who are not performing similar functions, but the hon. Gentleman is otherwise right to say that people who are performing similar work should all be subject to the same regime, so that there is no scope for the inequality of treatment that would otherwise almost inevitably result.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Before the hon. Gentleman develops his argument, will he pause and give his attention to clause 19(8)? Will he consider paragraph (b) in particular?

Mr. Bercow: I am always happy to be referred to a subsection of any clause of which the Minister is the parent. I have focused my beady eye on clause 19(8), which features on page 16 of the Bill, with which I am sure all hon. Members who are present will be intimately familiar. For the avoidance of doubt, I point out that subsection (8) deals with the meaning of the term "regulated person". That seems clear, but I think that the only provision of even modest significance in the subsection—this point is important if the hon. Gentleman is trying to develop an argument—is paragraph (d), which refers to
any person who is not so approved but provides security industry services which he is prohibited by any such regulations from providing.
I assume that the Minister is suggesting that an individual who is not fully approved, but who is nevertheless providing services, will be subject to the entry and inspection powers contained in clause 19(1). That is not entirely clear, but if that is what the hon. Gentleman says, I shall not object. Indeed, I shall be tempted to dance around the mulberry bush in appreciation of the fact that the Government have seen the point and have incorporated it in the clause. However, although I am grateful to the Minister for moving me on from page 15 to page 16, I see no good reason why such provision should not be included in subsection (1) to ensure that the matter is clear beyond peradventure. That is my answer to him, but if he tells me that the matter is dealt with and that there is no need for any further i-dotting and t-crossing, I shall be happy to accept his assurance. I would be grateful if he made the matter clear, as it is not trivial. I hope that he will accept that civil liberties and the important issue of equality of treatment, to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and I keep returning, are of the first importance.
I should like briefly to comment on clause 20 and on the attempt of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to amend it. As I understand it, amendment
No. 9 would ensure that no document on the guidance about the way the powers are to be exercised should take effect before
a draft of the document has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
In short, that is an argument for the affirmative method—I use that term for want of a better one, as we usually use it in relation to the statutory instrument procedure— rather than the negative one. The hon. Gentleman was slightly doubtful about whether everybody would understand the distinctions between regulated and unregulated matters. I argued only that people who are not regulated should not be treated preferentially in comparison with those who are regulated. The point is simply stated: the question of affirmative and negative procedure should be clear beyond doubt to those outside the House who take an interest in these matters. As the Minister, but not everybody, knows, the negative procedure does not allow debate. It means that measures are rammed through the House on the nod, without the opportunity for speeches or voting. However, the affirmative procedure gives hon. Members the chance to express an opinion.
My view is consistent with that of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. I believe that the guidance on the exercise of entry and inspection powers is critical. Great issues are at stake. The powers of the officers must be adequate, or there will be no point in providing for them. Equally, there must also be adequate protection for those who will be subject to the exercise of those powers. It is not entirely a matter of those words that Ministers tend to use in the context of amendments to proposed legislation—our old friends "minor" and "drafting". Issues of judgment, evaluation, degree and what I might best describe as proportionality are involved. In that context, I think that the hon. Gentleman has a good point. Let us see the draft, which can be placed before this House and the other place, and let there be a debate on it in which we can offer our opinions about whether the Government have got the balance broadly correct.
6.45 pm
Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath expressed with a world-weary cynicism born of his nine years in the House his hope that the Minister would change the habits of a lifetime and accept an Opposition amendment. I want to renew that plea in an unselfish fashion. on behalf of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. The request in amendment No. 9 for an opportunity to see a draft document and to scrutinise it, as well as for an acknowledgement of hon. Members' right to speak and the possibility of a vote, is of the essence. That request is so transparently reasonable that only an extraordinarily unreasonable Minister could resist it.
The Minister is an assiduous, eager and very ambitious man, as I continually remind him. He is a man who was described by Mr. John Kampfner, the distinguished political commentator of The Guardian, as a future leader of the Labour party, and he is now under inspection.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bercow: I shall perorate in a moment, but how can I refuse to give way to a man who is not only older than me, but substantially bigger?

Mr. Soames: What my hon. Friend says about the Minister is true. Does he agree that it would be a terrible

shame if blind, untrammelled ambition were to stand in the way of such a reasonable request from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). and such profound and splendid oratory from my hon. Friend"

Mr. Bercow: I say to my hon. Friend frankly that I am in danger of becoming emotional. We had a rocky start when this Parliament began. I think he doubted whether I had any right to sit in this place at all, as I went to a state school, paid a mortgage and bought my own furniture. Since then, he has been reconciled to me, and we have what might almost be described as a symbiotic relationship, so often do we see eye to eye on matters of state, both great and small. His interventions are invariably sensible and eloquent. With his unfailing skill in hitting the proverbial nail on the head—a skill that only somebody who has spent as much time on the Clapham omnibus as he has could demonstrate—he has got it absolutely right. We are considering a question of ambition versus reasonableness. I say to the Minister, who is always anxious to throw red meat in the direction of his under-utilised and ordinarily militant Back Benchers—

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Ah!

Mr. Bercow: I say to the Minister that he should prove reason, independence of mind and generosity of spirit. I say to him that now is the opportunity to show oneself to be a man of independent mind and generous nature. Will he pass or fail the examination? I await his response and the answer as to success or failure with bated breath, eager anticipation and beads of sweat upon my brow.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Before I begin, let me say how glad I am to see my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in her place. I would not say that I have a symbiotic relationship with her, as I have been advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) that the only known example of a symbiotic relationship in the natural world is that between a plover and the crocodile from whose tongue it plucks leeches. When the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) described his symbiotic relationship with the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), I was trying to work out which of them was the soft little bird and which was the crocodile. I think that most people would acknowledge that, at a time such as this, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex has the more meat-eating characteristics.
I was amused that the hon. Member for Buckingham began his speech by referring to the alleged plagiarism of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I do not think that he was correct. Plagiarism is often a two-way relationship. When we discuss the relationship between libertarianism and authoritarianism in the Conservative party, we get into deep waters. At the end of the Conservative party conference last year, everyone lined up behind their libertarian or authoritarian leadership challengers.
Some people listen to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Some libertarians in Conservative party ranks—perhaps including the hon. Member for Buckingham—may support him, but others would not.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) would not agree with him. In all friendship, I therefore advise the hon. Member for Buckingham not to go far down the road on which he embarked. However, it is an interesting debate. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not make the same mistake as some do of confusing civil rights and libertarianism with the rights and interests of the legal profession.
Let me consider more serious matters. I asked the hon. Gentleman to examine clause 19(8), which defines a regulated person as either
the holder of any licence granted under this Act
or
any person who engages in licensable conduct without being a holder of a licence under this Act".
Licensable conduct is defined in clause 3(2). Clause 19(8) defines the powers that we are discussing as applying to licence holders and people who are engaged, without holding a licence, in the sort of activity that the Bill tries to regulate. I do not, therefore, believe that the hon. Gentleman's anxiety has substance.
Clause 19 provides the authority with an important power that will help it to enforce its licensing regime effectively. It gives it the power to enter premises and require the production of documents or other relevant information.
A person who is properly authorised by the authority will be able to enter premises owned or occupied by a regulated person. Proper authorisation is defined in clause 19(1) and in clause 20, which states
It shall be the duty of the Authority to prepare and publish a document containing … guidance
about the way in which authorised people will act. There is no precondition in the Bill for an authorised person to provide prior notice. In general, one would expect prior notice to be given of a visit for routine purposes. However, there is no requirement to do that. Clause 20 provides for the production of guidance, which will set out the terms for giving prior notice. That is also the burden of amendment No. 8.
The Bill provides for guidance, and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey argues that Parliament should consider that guidance. The answer to his question about whether prior notice will always be given under authorisation is no. He also asked whether the notice and the operation of the authorisation would be set out in clear guidelines, which were publicly available and hopefully agreed. The answer is yes
A regulated person is defined in clause 19(8) as anyone who has or who ought normally to have a licence. Such a person may be required to produce documents or information about licensable conduct, the provision of security services or conditions attaching to approved contractor status under any compulsory scheme, should the voluntary scheme ever be converted into a compulsory one.
Amendment No. 8 would require a person who was authorised to enter premises to do that in a reasonable manner and only as part of a routine check, or as a result of reasonable suspicion of a breach of regulations or commission of an offence. The main effect of the amendment would be to limit the authority's ability to conduct random checks of regulated persons.
The provisions already place several requirements on any person authorised by the authority when exercising the powers. They include: exercising the power only at reasonable times; operating only in relation to persons "appearing" to be regulated—mere suspicion is not enough; and stating the purpose of the inspection. The inspector must produce evidence of identity and authorisation; a record must be made of what happens during the inspection; and a copy of that record must be given to those on the inspected premises if requested. That would form the basis of any subsequent challenge.
Those measures place several requirements on persons entering premises. They take appropriate account of civil liberties while providing a powerful and focused tool to enable the authority to enforce the licensing regime.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister deal with the specific question that the hon. Member for Buckingham arid I asked? What provision protects against misuse, harassment and obsessive interest by the regulatory authority? Such behaviour could be covered by the random check, the routine check and the reasonable check but be oppressive none the less.

Mr. Clarke: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the guidance will include dealing with such an effect. However, I do not believe that the state of affairs that he described is likely to arise. The need to state the purpose of the inspection, for which the Bill provides, makes it difficult to make the repeated inspections that he fears.
Amendment No. 9 would require laying before Parliament the guidance, which the SIA will draw up under clause 20, on the exercise of its power of entry. The Bill already requires a significant amount of further parliamentary input to get the authority and its regimes up and running. Several clauses allow the Secretary of State to introduce statutory instruments that activate or specify in greater detail the operations of the SIA.
The content of the statutory instruments will be central in establishing the authority's detailed operating framework, and it is right that they should be brought before Parliament. I am therefore not persuaded that we need to ask Parliament to approve the detail that the amendment would require.
The Bill's main purpose is to establish the SIA and vest in it appropriate discretion to regulate the industry, backed up by specific parliamentary sanctions for its most important aspects. I believe that the authority's approach will be sound and that to require the laying of draft guidance and, perhaps more important, revised guidance—we shall conduct regular revision—before Parliament would detract from the ability to be flexible in evolving circumstances.
I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. Hughes: The debate has been important, and the Minister has given welcome assurances on the first issue that we mentioned. However, the Bill could be described as an outline measure, and we do not know the details. We cannot judge whether the guidance will be adequate until we see it later.
I was amused when the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) had the exchange with the hon. Member for Buckingham. It was suggested that serried ranks of
militant Labour Back Benchers sat behind the Minister. There was a gasp of astonishment from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) because she shares the view that although the Government may want to claim much credit, claiming that their Back Benchers are militant, nearly militant or even active—let alone interested and critical—is an exaggeration well beyond the understanding of anyone who has watched our proceedings in the past four years. The Government may not have had an easy ride from the Opposition, but they have had a mighty easy ride from their Back Benchers. Whatever the result of the election, I hope that that does not continue in the next Parliament.
I sense that interest in the debate has risen to an unexpected height. The Bill has taken on a new and greater importance. For once, I shall give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. On one occasion only, and with no promise of a repeat, I beg to ask leave to withdraw an extremely good amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Business of the House

7 pm

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Following the Prime Minister's announcement earlier today, and following discussions through the usual channels, the business for tomorrow will now be as follows: a procedural motion relating to the business of the House, followed by the remaining stages of the Finance Bill and remaining stages of the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill. At 10 o'clock, the House will be asked to approve all outstanding estimates. and we will take proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. The House may also be asked to consider any Lords Messages that may be received. I hope that the business for later in the week will be announced tomorrow, following further discussions.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for making her business statement available to me earlier. Following the Prime Minister's valedictory address earlier today, will the right hon. Lady confirm that what is in the second statement tomorrow will be the subject of tomorrow's procedural motion, because it is not clear at the moment whether the procedural motion tomorrow will deal only with tomorrow's business or with the business for the remainder of the week? If that motion will deal with business for the remainder of the week, it is important that the Government should allow sufficient time for it to be debated by the House. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that that will be the case?
Will the Leader of the House also confirm that all the scheduled oral questions for the remainder of the week will take place, including those tabled for Thursday, and will she also tell the House whether the business in Westminster Hall will continue as announced for the rest of the week? Is she able to make a statement tonight about a possible date for Prorogation, as that is obviously a matter of interest on both sides of the House? Also, does she anticipate there being a gap between Prorogation and the Dissolution of Parliament?

Mrs. Beckett: First, on the assumption that the hon. Lady was asking me about a further business statement tomorrow, and about a time for the motion to be debated, was she referring to the business motion?

Mrs. Browning: I am sorry that I did not make that clear. I asked whether the motion that the right hon. Lady has announced today—the procedural motion relating to the business of the House—would include tomorrow's business and any subsequent business.

Mrs. Beckett: My anticipation is that it will certainly include tomorrow's business. It is not yet certain whether it will include business for later in the week, because there will—as I have said—be a further business statement. [Interruption.] I suggest that Conservative Members bear in mind the fact that these are matters for negotiation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No.'] Yes, they are.
Secondly, the hon. Lady asked me whether oral questions would take place as scheduled. 1 anticipate that they will. I also anticipate that the business in


Westminster Hall that has been scheduled will take place. 1 fear that I cannot give the hon. Lady any of the other information that she seeks.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Given that my right hon. Friend has said that she will make a further statement tomorrow about business for the remainder of the week, which includes Thursday, and given that Thursday is at present scheduled to be an Opposition day, will she do her best to persuade the Opposition to maintain it as an Opposition day so that the House can have the opportunity to hear from the Conservative party how it intends to keep many thousands of people segregated on aeroplanes until the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has inspected their credentials?

Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend makes an enticing case, but that it is not the business that I have announced—nor do I anticipate doing so.

Mr. Paul Tyler: May I encourage the Leader of the House to make tomorrow's statement and the procedural motion as comprehensive as possible and to cover the whole period up to the Dissolution if possible? Otherwise it will be extremely difficult for the House to deal with unfinished business in an orderly manner. There is some very important unfinished legislative business, on accountability in the health service, for example, which I hope will be given proper accountability in the last few days of this Parliament. Some Executive business also remains, and it is extremely difficult for us to maintain our scrutiny of such Government action when the House is not sitting.
I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the aftermath of the foot and mouth crisis, which is still with us, and to the effect of the crisis on the tourist industry, which is causing huge problems at the moment. I note that the Select Committee report on the funds available to the regional development agencies and the tourist boards is totally critical of the amount of funding available. Indeed, the report states, "We find this astonishing." We still require important statements from the Government before the Dissolution of Parliament, and I hope that we shall get a comprehensive programme tomorrow, rather than having to wait until the end of the week.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady's statement covered the business for tomorrow. Another statement will follow. Questions now should only be about the statement that the right hon. Lady has made tonight.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Of course I understand the House's anxiety to be fully informed. Certainly, it would be the Government's wish to put as much information before the House as we can, and we will do so.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: May I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that she will make a statement tomorrow on what is to happen on Friday to my excellent private Member's Bill, which will protect the interests of low-paid shop workers throughout the United Kingdom and which I am quite sure Her Majesty's Government strongly support?

Mrs. Beckett: I listen with sympathy to what I am sure is the first of many fervent pleas. I fear that it is not at

present clear to me whether we shall be taking private Members' business on Friday, but I shall bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind.

Sir Patrick Cormack: To clarify that point, and in relation to the statement tomorrow, does the Leader of the House envisage that the House will sit from 11.30am to 7 pm on Thursday—or will it sit later? Will the right hon. Lady clarify whether she envisages any time for private Members' Bills on Friday, and does she envisage announcing the Dissolution on Friday or on Monday?

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that all those questions take me into the territory of what would be the business beyond tomorrow. I am not, therefore, in a position to assist the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House confirm that there is nothing in the business that she has announced for tomorrow—or, indeed, in the parliamentary business that she will announce tomorrow—that would keep the Deputy Prime Minister out of Scotland over the next wee while, or will he just be kept out because he would blow the gaff on the Government's plans to cut public spending in Scotland after the election?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has been listening to misinformation. I fear that I am not familiar with the Deputy Prime Minister's present schedule.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Leader of the House arrange tomorrow to make a statement to the effect that the Government—or perhaps the House of Commons Commission—will refer to Sir Nigel Wicks and the Committee on Standards in Public Life the issue of the resourcing of the Commissioner's Office in the House and the procedure for the re-appointment of the Commissioner for Standards?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I am not aware that that is a prime matter in the business to be brought before the House.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Leader of the House not think that she owes a public apology to Southend-on-Sea? Given that today is the first day in the history of Parliament that we have had an exhibition promoting the glories of Southend in the Upper Waiting Hall, will she urge all her colleagues to visit the exhibition before they go off to fight the election?

Mrs. Beckett: I sincerely apologise to Southend-on-Sea. I shall urge my colleagues to visit not only the exhibition but the town.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I raise a matter that is of concern to all Members of the House, whichever their party? The Prime Minister has announced an election. Although I accept that it might be necessary to wait until tomorrow for details of how the House will conduct its affairs for the rest of the Parliament, is it not possible for the Leader of the House to tell us when the Dissolution of Parliament will take place, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)
asked? It is necessary for Members of Parliament—although not for the Government— to make arrangements as to where their secretaries and equipment are going to be by the end of this week or the beginning of next week.

Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I understand his point. However, he will be aware, as there has long been an excellent analysis in the Library on this point, that if the general election is to be held on 7 June, the House will have to be dissolved on or before 14 May.

Mr. John Redwood: Why is this such a shambles? Is the Leader of the House the only person in the country who did not know that an election was planned? Is she the only person who was not let in on the secret? Have not the Government been planning for this election for more than four years, and should they not be able to tell us when this miserable Parliament is finally going to be dissolved?

Mrs. Beckett: I can only suggest that, not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman is suffering from an extraordinarily selective memory. If he looks at Hansards relating to this stage of past Parliaments, he will find that nothing I have said is in any way unusual.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Will there be time for proceedings on the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill to be completed tomorrow? If not, when will there be time for them to be completed? The Bill is widely supported by Members in all parts of the House, and the Welsh Assembly has worked closely with the Government in trying to secure its passage. If it is not possible to pass the Bill before dissolution, will that not constitute copper-bottomed evidence that the Assembly needs powers to make primary legislation?

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that it will not be possible to deal with the Bill tomorrow—but, like other business that is before either House, it is very much in the Government's mind.

Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Leader of the House guarantee that the rights of the House to scrutinise the Government and hold them to account will in no way be compromised by this unseemly last-minute dash into an unnecessary election?

Mrs. Beckett: Certainly the House will continue to enjoy the rights that it has always enjoyed. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that he, like his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), has clearly forgotten this stage of every Parliament in which he has served.

Orders of the Day — Private Security Industry Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.

Schedule 1

THE SECURITY INDUSTRY AUTHORITY

Jackie Ballard: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 24, line 6, at end insert—
'(1A) Any such report shall include details on the progress of implementing this Act and all new secondary legislation and guidance passed under this Act.'.
Schedule 1 deals with the setting up of the authority—[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly?

Jackie Ballard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Schedule 1 deals with the setting up of the authority. On Second Reading I expressed disappointment at the fact that all its members would be appointed by the Secretary of State; nevertheless one of its duties will be to present him with an annual report which will then be placed in the House of Commons Library. We fear that the Bill, being a framework Bill, will leave a lot of detail to be dealt with later, and that there will not be as much parliamentary scrutiny of that detail as there could be.
This is a small amendment, and I shall not take up much of the House's time. I merely say that, in our view, it is unlikely that an authority set up by the Secretary of State will produce a report on its work over the year that will be in any way critical of what it has done during that period, or will draw attention to its shortcomings. The purpose of the amendment is merely to ensure that the report gives real information, and provides details of further legislation and the progress of this legislation during the year, rather than being a glossy annual document that is of no interest or use to anyone.

Mr. Charles Clarke: The Government do not disagree with the substance of the amendment, but in the spirit of the argument frequently advanced by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and her hon. Friends that there is no need to include in legislation requirement for action that would routinely be taken, I urge her to withdraw it.
I would expect the SIA's annual report to contain the information that the hon. Lady requests. Clause 1 obliges the authority to report on all the functions specified in that clause, which include the elements identified in the amendment. In the extraordinary event that the annual report did not contain such information, it would be open to the Secretary of State to direct the authority to provide it. I can certainly make a commitment on behalf of the present Government that a future Secretary of State would give such directions if they were necessary.
The precise content of the report will be a matter for the authority, but as I have said, the authority is required to report properly on the operation of its functions as set out in clause 1, and I cannot imagine how it would be possible to do that without including the information


specified in the amendment. I therefore hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment, given my assurance that all the aspects mentioned in schedule 1—including those that she has identified—will be covered.

Jackie Ballard: I expected the Minister to be courteous and helpful, as he usually is, and I shall be equally courteous and helpful: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2

ACTIVITIES LIABLE TO CONTROL UNDER THE ACT

Jackie Ballard: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 27. line 8, leave out—
`purposes of any accountancy practice'
and insert—
`sole purposes of accountancy activities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No.12, in page 28, line 9, leave out—
'purposes of any accountancy practice'
and insert—
`sole purposes of accountancy activities.'.

Jackie Ballard: I suspect that we may not get through these amendments as speedily as we got through amendment No. 10. They raise genuine concerns, and have been the subject of debate in Committee and subsequently. The issue was originally raised in the other place.
The Minister and others will be well acquainted with the arguments that have already been rehearsed. They arise because many accountancy firms have branched out into security consultancy work. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) drew attention to a Financial Times article that described five big accountancy firms as the top players in the intelligence industry. It seems sensible, if such firms engage in the same activities as others in the security industry, to make them subject to the same licensing regimes. The accountancy firms argue that that is not necessary because they are licensed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants and other bodies, but those bodies were not established to regulate security consulting investigations, or the security activities of accountancy firms.
I accept that employees of accountancy firms who are not members of such bodies, but who engage in licensable conduct, will require licences. Our amendment seeks to limit the exemption to what is purely accountancy work, and tries to ensure that accountants who branch out into the security industry fall within the licensing regime if they deliberately engage in activities that are otherwise covered by the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey withdrew his amendment in Committee, because the Minister said that he recognised the seriousness of the issue and would examine it again.

My hon. Friend asked me to pass on his gratitude to the Minister for arranging the meeting that they had this morning.
I stress that the issue for professional security firms is not one of cost compliance; they are happy to be regulated, but they want a level playing field. I look forward to hearing the Minister's further thoughts.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) rightly said that we had discussed these issues in some details in Committee. Moreover, they were raised in amendments proposed by my noble Friend Lord Cope in another place, accepted by the Minister's noble Friends, and introducing some protection for leading accountancy firms.
In Committee, we sought to introduce amendments giving similar protection to those working for law firms. Even at the end of the Committee stage, there was continuing concern among accountants. I have had a submission from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales suggesting that even the amendments that were tabled by my noble Friend Lord Cope—which now form part of the Bill and which the hon. Lady is seeking to water down—do not go far enough. Therefore, as the Institute of Chartered Accountants is saying that it requires more protection for those who are not chartered members of the institute—they may be students or part-time employees—and that the Bill should go further, and as the hon. Member for Taunton is saying that the Bill goes too far, perhaps we have reached a happy medium, thanks to my noble Friend Lord Cope.
Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Taunton has raised an important issue which will no doubt continue to be considered carefully by the members of the new authority. I look forward to hearing the Minister's confirmation that he will again be prepared to instruct his officials to send the members of the authority information about this debate and our debates in Committee, so that these important matters can be kept under review. I see the Minister helpfully nodding.
As with any new authority, we shall not know for certain how the provisions operate until the authority is up and running. Further revision of secondary legislation or the introduction of fresh primary legislation may be necessary to adapt the regime in the light of experience. The way in which law firms or chartered accountants are covered in future clearly will be a matter of continuing scrutiny by the authority and by the new, incoming Conservative Government who will replace the current Labour Government.
As I said, these are important issues. It is important that the hon. Member for Taunton has raised them again, enabling us to debate them briefly on Report. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply.

Mr. Charles Clarke: This is an important issue, and it is difficult to find the right way of addressing it. As the hon. Members for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) both said, the position of accountants and their employees has been discussed at length in our earlier debates and in the other place. The Bill is targeted on selected providers of private security services; the intention has not been to target it on accountants in general. We also recognise that big accountancy firms have diversified into spheres in which they undertake designated services as defined in the Bill, particularly private investigations and security consultancy.
We did respond to strong lobbying in the other place to the effect that members of recognised accountancy bodies should not be caught by the definitions on account of their professional qualifications. It was not only a matter of the self-interest of private firms, as the Serious Fraud Office and the Financial Services Authority also had concerns which were reflected in the debate in the other place.
Amendments were duly tabled and approved in the other place, but they were focused on exempting only members of defined accountancy bodies. We recognised that diversified accountancy firms have many employees who are not members of the relevant accountancy bodies but are undertaking designated activities as defined in the Bill. We fully accepted that to exempt them too would create a seriously uneven playing field. We have also accepted that doing so would mean that private investigators and security consultants describing themselves as such would be licensable, whereas employees of accountancy firms who undertake precisely the same type of consultancy would not be licensable. We have therefore resisted calls, particularly in the other place, to extend exemptions to those employees also.

Jackie Ballard: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: I shall in a moment.
Notwithstanding the arguments made in Committee by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the complexities of diversified accountancy businesses —although the issues are not dissimilar in relation to IT services—would result in major definitional difficulties in attempting to describe, within the framework of definitions used in the Bill, a clear distinction between accountants acting solely for the purposes of accountancy activities and those undertaking designated activities as defined.
I have some comments to make on my discussion this morning with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, but shall first give way to the hon. Lady.

Jackie Ballard: The Minister's argument seems to hinge on the fact that accountants will gain an exemption because of their professional qualifications and membership of professional bodies. However, can he give any other example in which someone's membership of a body exempts him or her from regulation when performing a task that is not covered by his or her specific qualification?

Mr. Clarke: As I said, we made concessions on accountancy after hearing representations in the other place. However, as I said in relation to our earlier debate, I think that there are similarities in IT services, in relation to which not dissimilar issues arise.
This morning, following the representations of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I met him and some of the industry bodies concerned to discuss some of the concerns that have been expressed. I was glad to have the opportunity to meet—and my officials had already met—some of the individuals concerned.
I understand the concern of some in the private investigation sector that even the narrow exemption for members of recognised accountancy bodies could have

the effect of creating, as the hon. Member for Taunton said, an uneven playing field. An important point to emphasise—it was not clear to me until this morning—is that it did not seem that the cost burden of licensing within the private investigation sector was the prime cause of an uneven playing field. As that point came across strongly this morning, I think that I should place on record my understanding of what was being said.
The concerns as expressed to me were that potential customers for investigation services might be tempted to regard accountants exempted from regulation in the Bill more favourably than regulated private investigators. It was essentially a branding image competition point rather than a cost competition point. Although I could see that the argument had some weight, I was not wholly convinced by it. It seemed to me that potential customers for investigation services are more likely to look in the round at the depth, breadth, quality and cost of potential contractors than at the position under the Bill of senior members of the accountancy and investigations professions.
I have, however, listened to the concerns that were expressed at this morning's meeting and by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Although I cannot undertake to accept amendment No. 11, or to promise change in the Bill at this late stage, I can give an absolute undertaking to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Taunton that the new authority will keep a very close eye on use of the various exemptions granted in the Bill.
We would positively expect the authority to make recommendations for changes if it became clear that the exemptions are operating in a manner that either distorts the level playing field in the provision of services which we are committed to establishing or allows individuals to practise in the sphere who might otherwise be reprehensible in the way in which they were operating a private security business.
I do not put my hand on my heart and say that the compromise that is before us today is defensible against criticism from any of the parties from whom criticism might come. However, in the spirit of trying to legislate in an evolving manner in this area, as we are attempting to do in the Bill, I believe that the Bill provides a perfectly acceptable way of addressing the issue. With the assurance that I have sought to give the hon. Lady—that the authority will watch the issue extremely carefully in relation to accountants and the other professions involved—I hope that she will be prepared to accept that the amendment was intended to make an advance in the sphere, and to consider withdrawing it.

Jackie Ballard: Before responding directly to the Minister's request at the end of his speech. I should like to deal with the comment made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) to the effect that a proposal that is being attacked from both sides, as going too far or not far enough, must be just about right. I assume that he will not be invoking that maxim in the forthcoming debates in the general election campaign.

Mr. Hawkins: 1 was restricting my comments to this particular provision and the hon. Lady should not draw any parallels from them.

Jackie Ballard: I am relieved to hear that.

Mr. Bercow: One is not supporting fence sitting, is one?

Jackie Ballard: I would never expect the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) to support fence sitting. He is probably the least fence-sitting Member of this place.
The Minister said that, earlier today, he met members of the private investigation sector who still have concerns. He was right to say that the key issue is concern not about cost compliance, but about the promotional aspects of the different applicable regimes. He has clearly heard the arguments. He also accepts that a finely balanced decision was required to get it right and that compromise is sometimes, but not always, the right way forward.
The Minister has given the House an assurance about the scrutiny of the operation of exemptions, and on the basis of that assurance I am sure that the private investigation sector will feel happier about that. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It gives me a good deal of pride to move the Third Reading of this important Bill, which has been awaited for 25 years. It establishes a new authoritative and independent body, the Security Industry Authority, and it gives the SIA the tools to do an important job: to drive out criminals and cowboys through a system of personal licensing; to recognise good companies by encouraging them to become approved contractors; and to improve standards throughout the industry. The Bill has been subject to comprehensive and constructive debate throughout its parliamentary passage, and, indeed, beforehand.
I acknowledge that the Bill is not perfect. Like any Bill, it is based on judgments that not everyone shares. I acknowledge that some would argue that the Bill is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said at beginning of our debate, half a loaf rather than the whole loaf that they would have preferred. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend and others accept that in offering what I think is more than a half loaf—but let us not quibble about fractions—we are laying a path for the regulation of the industry that will achieve the important functions set out in the Bill.
We have listened to arguments on a number of topics. We do not agree with all of them, but we acknowledge them and the effectiveness and constructiveness with which they have been moved. We believe that the Bill is a flexible measure. It contains the ability to address every one of the points that have been the source of criticism during its passage. For example, it can address the criticism that it does not regulate enough sectors as new sectors can be brought into regulation by secondary legislation. The criticism that we are not making the approved contractor scheme compulsory can be addressed by regulation if necessary.
We have accepted some sensible proposals—if this is not an oxymoron—from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. In particular, the Bill has improved provisions relating to appeal procedures from SIA decisions, appeals to magistrates courts and the use of powers of entry and inspection.
I want to pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, whose contributions in Committee were both knowledgeable and passionate. As he knows, and no doubt will comment on in his speech, we did not agree with everything that he had to say, but I am sure that he will continue to influence the development of the SIA, and that the spirit that he set of an independent authority that regulates the industry in a way that not only improves its standards but drives out criminality will be the central watchword as it develops.
I should also like to thank Opposition spokespersons and right hon. and hon. Members from all parties who served on the Standing Committee. We considered the Bill in a constructive and positive manner. I should also like to thank my officials who have given me such effective advice throughout the passage of the Bill. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Hawkins: The Minister has been very brief in his summary of the Bill, which, as he rightly says, has been the subject of constructive debate on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I agree with the tributes that he paid to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). Everyone who has been involved in the Bill and has heard the detailed speeches that the right hon. Gentleman made on Second Reading, in many of the debates in Committee and once again today on Report pays tribute to his expertise and longevity in dealing with this issue. I think that he said that he has introduced no fewer than seven private Member's Bills on the subject during some 25 years in the House. No doubt the discussions between the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister about whether the Bill is half a loaf, which is better than no bread at all, rather than the full loaf that the right hon. Gentleman was asking for will continue when the right hon. Gentleman contributes to this debate.
I was fascinated by the Minister's description of his fellow Norwich City supporter, Delia Smith, when discussing culinary matters. We all have our favourite football teams and we all have our favourite dishes, but one thing that might unite us all is a great respect for Delia Smith and her skills as a practitioner of the culinary arts. Speaking as someone who cooked one of Delia Smith's recipes as recently as last night, I have particular reason to be grateful for her skilful direction. However, I cannot share her fascination or that of the Minister with that particular football club.
I agree with the Minister that the Bill is not perfect. Opposition Members would say that the Bill is undercooked rather than properly cooked—

Mr. Bercow: Half-baked.

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend says that it is half-baked, but that is a little unfair.
There have been constructive debates throughout the passage of the Bill. On Third Reading it is important to recognise that if the new Security Industry Authority works properly it will deal with the serious abuses of the so-called cowboy wheelclampers. I hope that it will also deal with the massive problem that I have highlighted in many debates in the House: the involvement of bouncers on the doors of pubs and clubs in the appalling illicit drug trade. We have all heard of cases where night club


bouncers have supplied the most dangerous drugs to young people, with tragic consequences. One remembers the appalling case of Leah Betts with particular poignancy when one considers the number of young people who have died as a result of being supplied with drugs by night club bouncers. I see that the Minister agrees. We all recognise that serious issues are involved.
We have had our reservations about whether the authority will be over-bureaucratic and whether it will work properly in practice. We had particular concerns that were addressed earlier this afternoon, including our fear that the Bill will not operate properly in relation to the IT security industry. Those doubts and concerns remain, but today we are prepared to give the Bill and the potential new authority the benefit of the doubt, although will want to keep it under scrutiny.
I have no doubt that the points that have been made by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and me about the need for continuing parliamentary scrutiny of the authority's work and for more issues to be dealt with by way of an affirmative resolution will continue to be live issues.
I do not want to detain the House unduly. At this stage we are prepared to give the new authority a fair wind, with the proviso that we will keep the matter carefully under review. We hope that it will work in the way that the Minister and those who advise him believe it will. We have our fears and concerns, but let us see how it works in practice. I will listen with great interest to the other contributions to the debate.

Mr. Bruce George: This speech will be short, for no other reason than I am due at a dinner at the American embassy to meet the "wise men" who have been sent over to persuade the British Government about national missile defence. I remain to be convinced, but I may just about make it in time for pudding.
Despite being Welsh, I am not a particularly emotional person, but I am very happy because, at long last, the private security industry is about to be regulated. Those in the industry will be the winners. They have not always realised that regulation would make them winners, but it will because it will give them something that they have been denied by their own indifference and hostility to regulation over the years. The Bill will give the industry a reputation that it can be proud of. Its previous bad reputation was deserved, because many of its members did not meet the standards set in countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, which have eagerly embraced regulation.
International companies operating in a regulated environment elsewhere encountered no problems, and I feel rather sorry about their experience in this country, where the prevailing standards are depressing. Here, an absence of training is the norm, and the public's attitude to the security industry is a combination of mirth, hostility and indifference.
That will change, and not only as a result of this long-overdue legislation. The market has changed, technology has moved forward and crime levels have risen. The police realise that they must work with technology produced in the private sector and with an

industry to which they can relate. In the past, the police were the professionals and the private security industry, in some sectors, was anti-professional.
This is a good day, and, as no further amendments have been tabled, the House of Lords can do nothing to injure the Bill. 1 do not believe that that would be what the other place would want, but we are at the beginning of a process of metamorphosis.
The process of transformation of the police in this country began in 1829 and it took 40 years before the new police force was in existence throughout the kingdom. I am sure that 2001 will be seen in a comparable light, and considered to be the date which the private security industry began the real process of reform. That process will not be completed overnight. It will not be complete even when the regulatory authority puts in place the new standards envisaged in the subordinate legislation. It will take some time, but the process is seriously beginning.
There has been much use of bread metaphors this afternoon. Having seen the consultative paper and the Bill, I believe that sliced bread is the appropriate term, as some of the contents of the consultative document have been sliced away. The loaf has thereby been diminished, but I hope that it will expand.
I began campaigning on this matter in 1975. My wife compelled me to clear out the garage, which had been unable to accommodate a motor vehicle since 1972. I knew that there was a big sack containing my material on the private security industry. The state of the Labour party in the 1980s, under the previous Government, made me think that it would be some time before regulation on the private security industry was introduced, so the sack was near the back of the garage.
When I opened it, it was like opening a time capsule. There I was—slim, fit and single, with much more hair than I have now. The paper was pink with age and some of it disintegrated in my hands. I looked at the debates from those early years. Had I realised that it would take a quarter of century to introduce measures establishing a regulated, accountable, efficient private security industry—measures that I considered to be inevitable and necessary—I probably would have thrown in the towel a long time ago.
Many private Members' Bills to regulate the industry, in whole or in part, have been introduced over the years. The list of sponsors contains the names of people who are either dead or long forgotten—Gardiner, Walden, Huckfield, Fowler, Fiddler, B. George, Lord Willis, Dixon, D., B. George, J. Wheeler, B. George. Michael Stern, B. George., and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey).
Many people have been supportive all along, including Group 4 and many medium-sized and small companies in the sector. The International Professional Security Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Institute of Security Management, the regulatory bodies representing the private security industry and the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union have also been positive. Long-standing friends include Peter Heims, Peter Jones and John Smith of the Prudential. They made me realise that some people in the private security industry shared my views.
Many others, however, continued to fight a guerrilla war. Until 1997, they included officials and Ministers at the Home Office, large private security companies whose


names I will not mention, and the associations representing them. In recent years, an incredible homogeneity has been evident. Opponents realised that the game was up and that it was in their interests as well as the public's to bring what is an enormous industry into the orbit of a regulatory system.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that the Bill is not the final version of the legislation. That may never be achieved. Instead, the Bill is the start of a rolling programme of improvement. We know what the deficiencies are—the lack of regulation of companies, the absence of regulations covering in-house security, and so on—and we have spoken about them often. However, I share the hope of many hon. Members that, in the course of the next couple of years, more sectors will be added to the regime.
The iron law of bureaucracy should not be imposed, but many bodies want to be regulated. They include the Master Locksmiths Association, the body representing the better end of the alarm system sector, and companies operating security shredding or storage services.

Ms Rosie Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many members of the wheelclamping industry believe that the time is now right for regulation, to ensure that people will not suffer as they have in the past?

Mr. George: I know that my hon. Friend has fought hard to have wheelclamping regulated. I did not mention it because I have never considered the wheelclamping industry to be part of the private security industry. However, the more the merrier: people who want to join the regulation regime should write to my hon. Friend the Minister of State before he leaves office.
It is ironic that wheelclamping should be regarded as part of the private security industry, many members of which will stay on the outside, looking in. That will remain the case until subordinate legislation is introduced.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State, with whom I have had many constructive meetings. My thanks go also to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who in the past has had to sit through many lectures on the subject. Opposition Members are lucky to have come to the debate rather late in the day. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary sat through my endless and futile attempts to convince the previous Government's Home Office Ministers and officials of the need to regulate the private security industry. I am deeply grateful to everyone who has contributed.
The hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) have said some kind things, and I thank them. The Standing Committee was useful, and I am indebted to the hon. Gentlemen for their willingness to tolerate long speeches and to join in the spirit of near consensus on the Bill. That spirit is not unique, but it is fairly rare. That is particularly the case in the matter of crime and policing, which, at a public level, is divisive.
The passing of the Bill will be greeted by me and the industry with satisfaction, but it is not the end of the matter. Should the Minister of state be transferred to the Ministry of Defence, I warn him that, like Hannibal

Lecter, who pops up in a variety of guises, I will be there to greet him at one of the first inquiries of the Defence Committee, which will be a long one into policing and security in the MOD.
The security industry is being transformed. Many bad companies will get out now and take their money and run, as those involved—who have serious criminal records—will never get past the regulatory authority. Their companies will not be able to meet the standards. I have mentioned the growth in technology, and it is an exciting time for the industry. The future is not just in the hands of the Home Office and the SIA, but in the hands of the industry. My interest in the matter will survive.
There has been talk of football teams, and Coventry City has had a bad time. Among Coventry's famous sons are the group, the Police; I think they were from Coventry. To paraphrase one of their famous songs—which I did not realise until years later was about stalking—"Every move you make, every step you take, we'll be watching you." That applies to whoever will be sitting in the Minister's place one month from now.
I am delighted that we have reached this point and I hope that the security industry will feel reasonably satisfied with our work. Finally, I thank my research collaborator, Mark Button, for all his work in bringing the interests of the private security industry before a wider audience. We have done a pretty good job of work and I look forward to the years ahead.

Jackie Ballard: The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) is right to be proud of the role that he has played in bringing regulation to the private security industry. The House and the public will be grateful to him for not throwing in the towel over the many years that he has been involved.
Many hon. Members have spoken about football teams; I do not see the reason for that, but I do not want to be left out. That gives me a good excuse—in what will probably be my last speech of this Parliament—to congratulate the players of Taunton Town, who won the FA Vase on Sunday, playing at Aston Villa. I was there to watch them win it; the first live football match I have ever watched. They lost the trophy when the town had a Conservative Member, so it is a good omen that they have won it now.
Congratulations have been given to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South and the Government on the Bill, which has been in gestation for more than 20 years. There seems to be a greater need for security measures and operatives in all our lives, whether it is CCTV, burglar alarms, clubs and shop door staff or security patrols on housing estates. I have grave doubts about some of those roles—which should be matters for police forces—being taken over by the private security industry.
As has been said, the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the Bill, although we have some lingering dismay that not all our helpful amendments were accepted by the Minister. They were helpful, particularly the proposal to include in-house operatives within the regulations—a matter to which the right hon. Member for Walsall, South drew attention. I suspect that that may find its way into the Bill at some point.
The Minister said that the Bill was flexible, and it is a framework Bill. We share the view of the official Opposition that it is important that the House is able to


scrutinise the application of that flexibility in future. I hope that the SIA will be truly representative of all the legitimate and relevant sectors of the industry and will have the powers and ability to scrutinise effectively an industry that, in the past, has often attracted the wrong sort of people who, far from making people feel more secure, have made them feel very insecure.
I suspect that there will not be a vote on the Third Reading of the Bill. If there were, I would urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. Bercow: Others have kept their contributions short; so will I. I congratulated the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) earlier, and having extended a bouquet to him I will spare him the embarrassment or indignity of further unwarranted and excessive effusions from me. Suffice it to say that everybody is aware of his expertise on the subject and everybody respects the dedication with which he has pursued issues and causes that are dear to his heart. The right hon. Gentleman is pleased with the Bill, and I hope that his expectation of its efficacy will be justified. If it is, it will be in the interests of the sector as a whole and of those who have reason to have contact or interaction with the private security industry.
In essence, a number of key areas are relevant to the sector that is covered by the Bill and of concern to those who scrutinise its contents. First, there is the key issue—what might be described as the macro-subject—of the Security Industry Authority; not only the powers and functions that are conferred upon it, but the way in which it is composed. We discussed these matters in reasonable detail on Second Reading and in Committee. The jury is out to an extent on whether—and, if so, to what extent—Government thinking and decisions on the matters reflect the spirit and content of our exchanges. Suffice it to say that there is a recognition that the authority needs to draw on the experience of the private security industry itself. If it were to fail to do so, it would not be adequately informed in the exercise of its powers.
On the other hand, it is important that people of ability and good intent who do not have a background in the private security industry but might have a capacity to offer an alternative view should have the chance to do so. One does not want the functions of the authority to suffer, however inadvertently, from the existence of what might be considered to be a parallax view; that is to say, the domination or exclusivity of a view that is drawn only from those who work in the industry. The Minister assured us in Committee that it was the intention to have a broad range of people. I hope that people will not be appointed to the authority by way of the offer of a bauble, but because they have ability, competence and good will. I am happy to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on that point and I hope that our best expectations and justified hopes for the composition of the authority will be reflected in due course.
A second important issue is the licensing and approval regime, including the provision for appeals and representations in relation thereto. We knocked these issues around by way of a game of legislative table tennis. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath

(Mr. Hawkins) and I—as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who is not in his place today but who contributed to the Committee—still have concerns about the way in which the Government intend to proceed. Nevertheless, Ministers made their case, and I hope that it will be borne out by the evidence of the efficacy of the Bill.
The fact that the Government and Opposition differ in their opinions serves only to underline the importance of the publication of findings and the opportunity for all Members of Parliament to come to a conclusion about whether the authority and the Bill have been effective in the first year. I hope that such opportunities will arise in the months ahead. The efficacy and transparency of the licensing regime will be important.
A third consideration is equally important—that of equity. We do not want the legislation to be a blunt instrument that over eggs the pudding. It should not trample over the legitimate rights of people employed in the industry, or those who deal with them, in order to achieve its objectives. The legislation must be proportionate at the same time as being effective.
There is a legitimate debate about who should be included under the rubric of the Bill, and the right hon. Member for Walsall, South—we defer to the strength of his long experience—believes that other sectors should be subject to the Bill's provisions in future. We shall wait and see. I do not necessarily disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, nor with the present stance of the Government, but in practice the hopes held out for a measure and the words the Government use to justify their position often differ from the evidence of the practical impact of the legislation.
The Government have made a case for regulation of the private security industry. They are also able to invoke as ballast in support of their case the fact that most of the sector wants some regulation. However, I hope that the Minister will accept that just as not all of the large employers in that 350,000-employee industry are good, not all the small operators are bad. Some of the small operators would like to grow and it is therefore important to keep a proper focus on the balance between efficacy and zeal. Small companies should not be so smothered in excessive regulation that they do not have an opportunity to develop their legitimate commercial activities.
My final concern is the way in which the powers of entry and inspection will be implemented. Without those powers, the Bill would not have any practical effect if people could not inspect on behalf of the authority to discover whether companies were respecting its provisions. However, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) observed earlier, it is important that the powers are equitably enforced. People should not be intimidated by excessive inquiry or over-zealous interference by public authorities. Defences should be built and protection provided. The guilty should be apprehended and punished, but the innocent should be left to go about their lawful business, consistent with the principles of a liberal and pluralist democracy.
My concerns are reflected in the 25-odd clauses of the Bill, and the jury is out on how effective those provisions will be. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden wish the Bill well. We have a duty to maintain a certain critical and dispassionate distance from the


Government on the subject and, in a fair spirit, to remind Ministers that, in the end, they will be judged on the evidence. I hope that the Bill will be effective and that people will judge this activity of Parliament as having been worth while.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

ASYLUM

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13119/00, a Commission Communication on a Common Asylum Procedure and Uniform Status for Persons Granted Asylum; and supports the Government's active participation in the debate on the Communication and the Government's Intention to participate in measures which would lead to the establishment of a common European asylum system, without undermining the integrity of the UK's frontier control.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

FINANCIAL SERVICES

That the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act and Meaning of Collective Investment Scheme) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 1421), dated 10th April 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th April, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Dyslexia

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Jane Griffiths: I am honoured to have secured this Adjournment debate on such an important subject. There is an element of circularity in that what is probably my last speech in this Parliament is on education, because my first action in the Chamber after being elected was to ask a question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and my maiden speech was in the debate on the Bill to end the assisted places scheme and reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds; so it seems right that my last contribution in this Parliament should be on education for people with dyslexia.
The Prime Minister promised that the first three priorities for this Government would be education, education, education. A child goes through education only once. Anything not done right in that time will stay with that child for the rest of his or her life. That is why it is so important that we get education right first time. It is even more important that we get it right for people with special needs such as dyslexia.
So what is dyslexia? I am grateful to the British Dyslexia Association, and particularly its policy director Carol Orton, for a briefing for this debate. The British Dyslexia Association is based in my constituency and further information about it, dyslexia and the support available can be found at www.bda-dyslexia.org. The word "dyslexia" comes from Greek and means difficulty with words. It involves a difference in the part of the brain that deals with language—it affects the underlying skills that are needed for learning to read, write and spell. More and more evidence has been gathered from brain-imaging techniques showing that dyslexic people process information differently from other people. That is particularly important and there is much more to be learned about what is and is not dyslexia, together with how it happens.
Around 4 per cent. of the population are severely dyslexic. A further 6 per cent. have mild to moderate problems. The recent Moser report found that 7 million adults had poor basic skills, many as a result of dyslexia, although many of them might not know it, having never been diagnosed. Dyslexia occurs in people from all backgrounds and of all abilities, from people who cannot read or write to those with university degrees. Dyslexic people of all ages can learn effectively but often need a different approach to learning.
Dyslexia is a puzzling mix of both difficulties and strengths. It varies in degree and from person to person. Dyslexic people often have distinctive talents as well as typical clusters of difficulties. Examples of difficulties include reading hesitantly; misreading, which makes understanding difficult; problems with sequences, such as getting dates in order; poor organisation or time management; difficulty in organising thoughts clearly; and erratic spelling. Examples of the possible strengths include innovative thinking; excellent troubleshooting; intuitive problem solving; being creative in many different ways; and lateral thinking.
The range of difficulties and strengths, along with the possible difference for different people, is part of what makes dyslexia difficult to detect. There has also been a


reluctance for far too long among educationists to accept the existence of dyslexia. Too many were reluctant to accept it because they thought that middle-class parents would claim that their child was dyslexic when in reality the child was simply not as clever as they would like.
My experience as a Member of Parliament, as well as as a councillor before that, confirms that there are indeed parents who will claim dyslexia in such circumstances, but I would contend that a child's comparative achievements should be dealt with honestly, and I think that the growth of testing has helped enormously with that. The problem should not lead to a denial of the existence of dyslexia.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate on a very important issue. Only yesterday, I spoke to Mr. Jordan, an optometrist in my constituency, who has been undertaking research involving 5,000 people in the United Kingdom over a period of 10 years. He believes that there is a way of measuring visual dyslexia. He and his colleagues have developed programmes that will be useful for teachers, including tests for visual reversals and a CD-ROM for teachers. If I forwarded that information to her and indeed to Ministers would they take it on board and examine it carefully?

Jane Griffiths: I warmly welcome what is clearly innovative research being done in the hon. Lady's constituency. I would be very glad to be furnished with information to help to make progress in research and development on this important subject.
It is important to identify dyslexia early. If it is identified early, support can be put in place so that a dyslexic child learns to its full capacity, just like any other child. If dyslexia is left unidentified, the child will have difficulties learning and will not develop to its full potential. In more extreme cases, which may be more numerous than we know, the inability to learn will result in the child switching off from education and from society, leading to disruption in school, to truancy and possibly to involvement in crime.
Angela Devlin, a prison visitor and researcher, found high levels of dyslexia in the prison population, which she considered both a symptom and a major cause of the prisoners' condition. That shows graphically why it is so important to get it right first time. Baseline assessment exists to assess how children perform when they enter school, but it will not normally identify children at risk of developing literacy difficulties because of dyslexia. Some schools use dyslexia screening tests so that they can pick up potential problems as soon as possible.
An audit was carried out for the BDA last summer by Members of Parliament during their school visits. It was admittedly not a scientific survey, but it covered 473 schools so it is worthy of note. It showed that only 11 per cent. of respondents had any formal procedures in place to identify dyslexia. A worrying 26 per cent. felt that they could not give specific help until the local authority educational psychologist had formally identified the child as dyslexic. Many pointed out how few visits they received from the educational psychologist and said that they had to prioritise what happened in those visits.
How many dyslexic children are still not being diagnosed, are being misdiagnosed or are being offered unsuitable provision? Are there any plans to standardise and distribute an assessment for dyslexia?
The literacy hours have been a great success and there has clearly been a significant improvement in literacy among children, but dyslexic children have fundamental difficulties with remembering and understanding sounds, and because the literacy hour moves fairly fast they can easily be left behind. How can we ensure that any falling behind is investigated long before it seriously affects self-esteem and causes frustration?
Too often, dyslexia is still seen as simply a reading problem, which means that children are being punished for dyslexic characteristics such as untidy handwriting or not listening, when in fact they have not been able to process language at speed and have been humiliated by the teacher's insisting that they read aloud in class, or even, in some cases, that they read out their work phonetically. We do not want such practices to continue.
The Department for Education and Employment has funded the printing of 35,000 dyslexia-friendly schools resource packs. That is a very positive and inclusive move, but it requires a proactive approach, which is too often missing. What steps will the Government take to ensure that similar policies are taken on board? I have heard about too many schools that are reluctant to admit children with dyslexia.
I am pleased to have had the chance to raise this important issue. I would like to summarise the points. They are: identifying dyslexia early; the impact on dyslexic people of the literacy hour; understanding dyslexia; and dyslexia-friendly schools.
A child goes through education only once. That is why it is important that we get it right and that intervention happens early. I have ambition for all our children. I have ambition that the potential of all our children is fulfilled though the education system. I do not want anyone to be held back—that is why ambition is so important: deliver help for children with dyslexia, deliver ambition to all our children.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on securing this debate. Dyslexia is an important subject which the Government take very seriously. It affects 4 per cent. of the population, with a further 6 per cent. displaying some dyslexia traits, with the effects that my hon. Friend ably and clearly outlined in her thoughtful speech.
I assure my hon. Friend and the House of the Government's awareness of dyslexia and specific learning difficulties, which is in no small part due to the positive and constructive working relationships that we have with organisations that support children and adults with dyslexia, such as the British Dyslexia Association, the Dyslexia Institute and the Adult Dyslexia Organisation.
The Government's drive to raise educational standards has to be seen in the context of our wider efforts to work towards an inclusive society and an inclusive education system. An important part of that is ensuring that special educational needs are recognised and acted on as early as


possible. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his foreword to the booklet for the recent British Dyslexia Association conference in York, we must strive to ensure that children with special educational needs are not sidelined. All children must be helped to achieve their full potential.
The recently published Green Paper affirms that we need to have high expectations of such pupils, to tailor the curriculum to their needs and to ensure that teaching challenges and stretches them. My hon. Friend spoke about the importance and centrality of the national literacy strategy, which was one of the first steps that the Government took to achieve their goal of an inclusive education system with high standards for all. It is intended to raise standards for all children, including those with special educational needs.
The national literacy strategy has at its heart the concept of inclusion. We have some evidence that the literacy strategy is benefiting pupils with special educational needs, including those with dyslexia. Ofsted's report on the second year of the national literacy strategy confirmed that, in line with its inclusive philosophy, very few pupils with SEN are withdrawn from the literacy hour and that specific support for pupils with SEN was in almost all cases satisfactory.
An essential element of the literacy strategy is the training and support provided to schools. We have produced materials that support the national curriculum 2000 statement on inclusion and give teachers practical advice on including pupils with SEN effectively in the literacy hour.
Our training file "Supporting Pupils with SEN in the Literacy Hour" contains detailed guidance on the practical application of strategies for inclusion, the role of the teaching assistant and, with the help of the BDA, some specific guidelines on providing for pupils with specific learning difficulties.

Mrs. Ewing: I hear all that the Minister says, but there is a need to support teachers to ensure that they understand the complexities of dyslexia. Is any money being allocated to ensure that teachers receive such training at college before they are placed in schools?

Jacqui Smith: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I shall deal with precisely that point in a moment.
A variety of methods exists to help children catch up, and they are included in the literacy strategy, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East correctly said, the priority must be not to let children fall behind. All too often, the parents of dyslexic children have told me that it is not good enough to wait until a child has fallen behind before recognising that there is a problem. That is why we have piloted a year 1 intervention strategy—early literacy support—in 40 local education authorities during the current school year, and we will extend the strategy on a national basis from this financial year.
Evidence from the pilot scheme suggests that we can reduce the number of children encountering significant difficulties with literacy at the end of year 1, by a combination of extra training, the careful screening of children against literacy objectives and additional, daily, small-group literacy support for identified children from a trained teaching assistant.
As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has said, it is, of course, particularly important that teachers are aware of the needs of children who have, or may be at risk of developing, special educational needs of any kind. That is why, since 1998, to secure qualified teacher status—in other words, during initial teacher training—students must demonstrate that they can identify pupils with SEN, that they know where to get help so that they can give positive and targeted support and that they are familiar with the SEN code of practice.
Those arrangements are further reinforced by the induction period arrangements that all teachers must undertake, and opportunities for in-service training also need to be provided for teachers once they are in post. That is why, in 2001-02, under the Department's standards fund programme, we are supporting expenditure of £82 million on SEN and envisage that £30 million of that sum will be spent on training and professional development. Although LEAs are responsible for determining precisely how that money is spent, I certainly would expect in-post training in recognising and dealing with dyslexia to be included for staff.
As I suggested earlier, we are also actively working with the voluntary organisations to raise awareness. For example, with the BDA, we jointly developed a poster providing hints for primary school teachers to help them identify those pupils with dyslexia. As my hon. Friend said, we have also provided a grant to help the BDA produce a schools resource pack, called "Achieving dyslexia friendly schools", and we have recently agreed funding to reprint that as well. The pack promotes a whole-school approach to supporting pupils with dyslexia and provides examples of best practice.
We also want to play an active part in research on dyslexia. Together with the National Lottery Charities Board and W. H. Smith, we are funding a two-year "Spell It"—which stands for study programme to evaluate literacy learning through individualised tuition—research project, run by the Dyslexia Institute, to evaluate the effects of structured programmes of intervention. The project is targeted at seven-year-old pupils who are experiencing specific difficulties in learning to read, write and spell. Two key elements of the project are to develop activities that parents can do at home—parents are often keen and able to support their children—and to share the knowledge and skills of specialist teachers more widely. The results of that research are expected in 2002.
My hon. Friend rightly identified the key issue—the early identification of special educational needs and dyslexia in the early years of education. Such early identification and early intervention to support those needs are a critical part of the Government's programme to raise standards. We are taking a number of steps to reinforce SEN structures in the early years. First, the introduction of the foundation stage of the national curriculum and the early learning goals in September 2000, alongside the significant expansion in places for three and four-year-olds, is an important part of the programme. The foundation stage guidance, published last May, is designed to help all early years settings to create inclusive learning environments and to support early identification and appropriate intervention.
Again, we are focusing on the need to ensure that practitioners are trained, and we have set ambitious targets for early years and child care development partnerships, which are responsible locally for the strategy, to provide


high-quality early education and child care places. The targets that we have set them cover the next three financial years and include establishing SEN co-ordinators in every registered early years setting by 2002; providing three days relevant training for every one of those SEN co-ordinators by 2004; and establishing a network of area co-ordinators to work with early years settings in the non-maintained sector, to provide expert advice and support. Significant funds are being provided to help carry forward that agenda.
My hon. Friend also rightly raised the important issue of baseline assessment. Baseline assessment can be a useful first screen. It helps teachers to consolidate their knowledge about pupils and devise strategies to follow up and meet any needs they may have. It also helps them to identify children whose needs may require further assessment and intervention, including those with dyslexia, if that has not been done already.
Although baseline assessment was not devised primarily to identify SEN, research into the current 90 local schemes shows that about two thirds of schools use it effectively as an early warning of learning needs, perhaps signposting a need for further screening, but there are differences between schemes. That is one of the reasons why we recently asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to consult on proposals for a national scheme for baseline assessment at the end of the foundation stage, to replace the current local schemes for the 2002-03 school year. The responses to that consultation are currently being analysed.
We believe that a national scheme would enable quality and consistency to be improved. It would build on the best features of successful local schemes, including pointers to raise awareness of phonological and language difficulties which indicate reading difficulties later on. It would also

allow children with particular needs for intervention, such as dyslexia, to be identified before literacy and numeracy sessions begin in year 1.
The consultation document also asked whether and how baseline assessment could be used specifically to help to improve the early identification of special educational needs. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that is a complicated area. There are of course many questions as to how baseline assessment might relate to the code of practice, to the early years provision that I outlined and to school-based provision. I have been especially keen to pursue answers to those questions, and am keen to work with any organisations which have ideas for such early identification.
We have considered other avenues of early diagnosis and intervention that can be pursued. We recently announced funding of £100,000 to support work by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency at Farnborough, the Royal Berkshire hospital and the laboratory of physiology at Oxford university, through the Dyslexia Research Trust, on the development of a new diagnostic aid for childhood dyslexia. The objective of the project is to design a prototype, child-friendly eye movement and tracking system that may enable early detection of childhood dyslexia. That is a particularly interesting project, combining as it does the existing world of fast-jet technology with research expertise in understanding the physiological bases of childhood dyslexia.
In conclusion, I again thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I reassure her that the Government put both high standards for all children and the inclusion of all children at the centre of their education policies. We shall continue to work with partners to ensure that children with dyslexia are identified early and are given the best possible opportunity to develop to their full potential.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Nine o'clock.